I can haz Anarchies?

[LoTek]

I've found a disturbing lack of anarchist activists in this city. it saddens me that in a city that needs hope the most, there is no resistance to be found. so let's talk about it.

i'll start.

When they send in the National Guard, we'll take chainsaws to the telephone poles to halt their progress - and they will throw down their guns when they see their nieces and nephews on the other side of the barricades. That night we will drag all the funiture out of the offices and department stores to build great bonfires in the intersections; we'll sit around them, passing food and drink and telling the unbelievable stories of how we arrived there.

The next morning we'll venture out one by one, then in pairs, to survey the remains - and perhaps after the initial shock it will appear to us as a great playground. We'll gaze at the carcasses of the dead machines in wonder that we lived in a society powered by things beyond our understanding; from that moment forward our understanding will be honed sharp by the challenges of building anew.

Some of us will still be angry, some will still be hurting; others will climb to the tops of the great wreckage heaps to look out into the sunrise, trying to see beyond it into the future, and sit there in silence for a long, long time. We'll trace each other's scars with our fingers, squeeze our hands together and shake our heads; perhaps sing low and softly.

We'll stand outside looted supermarkets, pitching soda cans and hitting them with axe handles to see them explode in the air, spinning like pinwheels. We'll dress the lamp posts in satin curtains, paint our own names on the street signs, throw christmas ornaments at each other like snowballs. We'll string extension cords around the old monuments to pull them down like the Communards did in Paris; we'll empty the TV dinners from our freezers and thow them off rooftops as we eat fresh apples from new trees. This is what it will take to rediscover that we are the master of things and not they of us. Wearing bridal gowns and firemen's jackets, leaving a swath of shattered dinner crystal in our wake, we'll cut a path to the gates of heaven so wide no one can ever shut them again.

We'll tattoo our faces to celebrate that there are no more borders to cross, that we can meet our oppressors in open war instead of having to smuggle ourselves through their checkpoints. Police stations will be evicted whereever they appear, officers will walk the streets in fear of being picked up and taken to squats, and the next time terrorists fly airplanes into office buildings; no one will be working in them.

The earth will give birth to stars that humble the heavens, and we'll have hospitals without sick people where today we have sick people without hospitals. Blacksmiths will once again swing their heavy hammers through the air, forging crowns great enough to fit on all heads at once. Driving through the wilderness across overgrown freeways on our species' last tank of gas, we'll see fireworks shooting up into the night on the horizon - a flare saying "don't rescue me!"

A decade to track down technicians to disable warheads and deactivate nuclear power plants; a generation to replace grocery stores with gardens and cough syrup with licorice root; a century for dairy cows and toy poodles to go feral; five hundred years to melt down cannons into wine goblets, water pipes and sleigh bells; a millennium for the dandelions growing out of the sidewalk to become redwoods.

Or else none of this will happen, but we will have the adventure of our lives; and if we meet again, we will build another castle in the sky.

Show me some solidarity, disagree with me, argue the tenants of capitalism, just please THINK. think and discuss.

[candyman]

How do you factor the military into all of this? I mean those of us in the active Army and such that know how to survive because that is what we train for. I mean, some of us may join the chaos...others would obey orders and the expending of ammunition would begin.

Just wondering...I like to think that we are needed here in the states and that would be one situation where a deployment to a combat zone wouldn't have me packing up and leaving.

Edited September 3, 2010 by candyman

[Raev]

I can't decide if this is just poor satire or if it's serious.

[LoTek]

i can assure you of its seriousness.

let's redefine something immediately. anarchy is NOT simply chaos. anarchy is (and this is where it gets tricky, because 10 different anarchists will define anarchy 10 different ways) simply put, the power to govern yourself. Proudhoun said it perfectly "Let no man make laws for me" and, the more inflammitory, "Whoever puts his hands on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant, and i declare him my enemy."

now let it be said outright, that i am not naive enough to think that anarchy can work on a nationwide scale. at least not at this point in our history. i believe in a personal approach to anarchy, based a mutualist angle. i will not enter into any relationship that is not mutually beneficial. that is to say, i will exploit no one (to the best of my abilities, shopping can be tricky) and i will not allow myself to be exploited.

simply put, i believe that no one has more authority to govern myself more than i do. how can someone tell me what is best for me, when they obviously are protecting their own interests....not mine. i believe in giving other people those rights as well. i believe that a majority of our problems, socially, are created by the forced coercion of capitalism, and the system which has innundated us from birth. would the native american peoples have killed each other over a pair of shoes? doubtful. they existed in a beautiful state of togetherness, of solidarity, where possessions where shared amongst the people. they didn't value *things*, possessions, the way modern man does. they valued relationships...they valued each other. capitalism does not allow for that.

keep in mind that anarchy, as i see it, is not a form of government. it is a dream of people being responsible for our own lives, our own destiny. it is a shared meal. a community coming together to rebuild a neighbors house after a fire. it is respect for each other and respect for yourself. THAT is anarchy in action.

no gods, no masters.

and don't tell me it can't be done. look at the amish. they live in a closed ecosystem, governing themselves, participating in society only on their terms, completely sustainable.....although they muck it all up with an oppresive religious state. that being said there are models for this kind of thing.

this is far more difficult to do as a one sided conversation, via the interwebs....and its way early and my coffee is just now being poured down my throat so i apologise that i wasn't as eloquent about the subject as the subject rightfully deserves. it has taken me years to formulate my own opinion on this subject, years of reading and discussing and employing different techniques...and learning from failure. and im still learning and changing my opinions every day. i certainly don't expect to change anyone's mind on this. at least not overnight. i would at least like to discuss it with people, and show everyone that there are alternatives to the current system.

if you are fighting than you have already won.

[Hollywood]

how can someone tell me what is best for me, when they obviously are protecting their own interests....not mine.

What do you mean "What is best for you?" You mean like government telling you that "This War" is good, and the ad companies saying "These shoes will make you seem awesome?" Then yes, I would have to agree with you. But if you mean something like a Doctor telling you to take these pills because if you do not then you could get ill.. well I will have to disagree, they know what is better health wise then I do because they have gone to school for it. Not everyone is thinking about "Me" only, even the ones who work in governments or big business.

would the native american peoples have killed each other over a pair of shoes? doubtful. they existed in a beautiful state of togetherness, of solidarity, where possessions where shared amongst the people. they didn't value *things*, possessions, the way modern man does. they valued relationships...they valued each other. capitalism does not allow for that.

While true capitalism makes it hard for people who are possessive to come together and share, the native Americans did not only kill each other over land, food, weapons, and live stock (Like the best hunting grounds) Some tribes actually killed each other for hatred, spite, sacrifice and did some pretty gross stuff... So you can not paint them in a picture where they all got along. Yes, some tribes did, but that is just an extension of family. (And I say this not trying to paint a picture of everyone's family) but a lot of them out there would help ones another and give possessions freely to other family members in today's society.

Honestly.. causing damage and harm (Mental or physical) to anyone is stepping over the lines when it comes to reform of a body of government. We live in a time when communication can cause a larger change then throwing a fist, and breaking a window. Remember, the pen is always mightier then the sword.

[Rev.Reverence]

While you say many good things, Hollywood...I must tell you, that, many many things the Doctors are brought, they have NO CLUE what is wrong...yeah, they went to school, but, that is only as good as the intellect that supports the learning, ya' dig?...so, if someone is a close minded person, they are a horrid anything..especially a Doctor(s).

[LoTek]

some very good valid points hollywood, however i feel like you missed the mark.

when i mean that someone else cannot dictate what is best for me, i do mean by governing. how can someone legislate what they feel is the best for me? or simply, for us? how can you legislate my body, or my wifes? i feel like i am the only one qualified to decide what to do with my body, as long as i am not harming anyone else. i don't feel it is the governments job to do that.

but you bring up an interesting subtopic, about doctors and their qualifications. do not be decieved into thinking that doctors always have your best interests in mind. they recieve hefty kickbacks from drug companies to push prescriptions onto you. a lot (not all, mind you) receive a monetary compensation, or a 'bonus', if they prescribe a certain pre-determined amount of any given medication. you can't tell me that money isn't going to motivate them to maybe give you something you don't actually need. i mean, we're about talking people that charge an $80 dollar fee, just to SPEAK to them. i feel maybe their priorities are on their car payment, or their morgage, and less on what YOU need as an individual. now that isn't to say all doctors are like that, or that even the ones that are, are evil people...it seems to me to be indicitive of the larger problem. the emphasis we as a society put on objects, on money, and on possessions....over the emphasis we put on one another. we have created a system where it is okay to exploit people, to HURT people, to destroy people's lives for simple monetary gain. in fact, your share holders EXPECT this of you. and these same people pound the bible and tell you that GOD wants it this way. remember, we are only a great nation because we are gods favorite nation. at least thats what fox news tells me.

all i ask is that you think about it. trust your instincts.

about the native americans. yes, you are absolutely right. i do not mean to paint them as peace loving hippies, getting along with everyone. they fought INCESSANTLY amongst other tribes. sometimes even simply for the joy of killing. but my intent was to spotlight their community standards. generally, one member of a tribe would not kill another member of the same tribe over material possessions. that is not to say it never happened, but i find it hard to believe that it happens on the scale that you see in our modern world. you hear about kids killing each other over nike's on a regular basis. this is because, once again, society has placed a higher value on status, on possession, than on human life.

i hope this helps to clarify, and please, if you have anything else you would like to discuss, i would be more than happy to talk about it. i like having discussions like this, more often than not i talk to people that already mostly agree with me, so it's nice to hear opposition. the best way to grow as a person is to take in many different ideas, and other peoples view points, and formulate your own opinions. through this kind of discussion i can define my own ideas, this back-and-forth helps me to solidify how i feel, and allows me to modify my own way of thinking.

thanks!

[LoTek]

Honestly.. causing damage and harm (Mental or physical) to anyone is stepping over the lines when it comes to reform of a body of government. We live in a time when communication can cause a larger change then throwing a fist, and breaking a window. Remember, the pen is always mightier then the sword.

also, i don't exactly agree with direct action. that would be kids throwing bricks, or fists, or each other into windows. in fact, a good portion of anarchists completely disagree with such actions. i do however, UNDERSTAND direct action, and can sympathize. i understand that communication can cause a larger change, maybe more than most.

that is why i started this post.

but to play the devils advocate, im not sure that our founding fathers would agree with your statement. they felt that causing damage and harm to the british was the ONLY way to gain freedom, and independence. so once again, its all about perspective, and how you look at things.

[candyman]

also, i don't exactly agree with direct action. that would be kids throwing bricks, or fists, or each other into windows. in fact, a good portion of anarchists completely disagree with such actions. i do however, UNDERSTAND direct action, and can sympathize. i understand that communication can cause a larger change, maybe more than most.

that is why i started this post.

but to play the devils advocate, im not sure that our founding fathers would agree with your statement. they felt that causing damage and harm to the british was the ONLY way to gain freedom, and independence. so once again, its all about perspective, and how you look at things.

So you understand the concept of management...you would be more of an instigator right? Its nice not to get your hands dirty but at the same time you would become the head that snipers want in their sights so the can complete their mission.

[LoTek]

okay, candyman, i want to engage you in this conversation, as you clearly are interested, but i have to ask...are we talking about the same thing here? just because i said i don't EXACTLY agree with direct action, doesn't mean i won't be on the front lines.

i think you might be a little confused. i may be wrong, but it seems to me like you are latching onto this idea of US (meaning anarchists) vs. THE GOVERNMENT (big business), in some kind of hand to hand, American Gladiator, mortal combat kind of scenario. this is fun to think about, but is not realistic at all. I don't even own a handgun, and the government has predator drones. it will NEVER come to US vs. THEM. they represent US...or at least are supposed to.

what im talking about here is not direct war with our government, that would be absurd and suicidal. i'm talking about hearts and minds here, changing peoples viewpoints. in this scenario, there is no NEED for a standing army. certainly not an invading army.

look, this idea isn't for everyone. it isn't supposed to be. some people NEED order, and laws, and to be governed....and that is fine. i don't. my comrades don't.

i understand your position, if you are indeed a soldier like i assume you are, and that this is natural for you to react to an idea such as this in the manner you are. if it comes down to that, and our government starts shooting kids in the street, you better fucking believe you will have an uprising. i would like to think that not even the most right wing tea partier dipshit would stand for that. not to mention, i don't think most soldiers, at least the ones i know, would fire on american citizens. it would never come to that. and if it does, you really need to ask yourself who you are fighting for. do you fight for the government? or do you fight for the people?

i guess that is something you need to ask yourself.

[kat (1)]

The democrats are failing, the rest of the U.S is falling apart. I get the point in this post. But it's not going to happen we are just gonna sit on are asses and let the fucktard government continue to drive us into destruction and take our money while they do it. All we are going to do is continue to kill one another, bitch about the system, but do nothing. I fear the way the world is going to be when my kids are older, especially if we don't figure out a new way. However, I don't think sitting around throwing shit at people is going to be exactly the change that needs to occur, I say if you want a new way than get an education (something like law, social work, science, political science, etc...) and change the system the right way, an effective way-slip into some old saps business/agency/organization, etc..., learn all you can about the career you chose, get some power, and BAM, when noone is least expecting, turn that shit upside down, that way you will have the old school fucks on your side because you have grown into a position were you are trusted and respected, and the new way thinkers who have been on your side are already there (everyone's on board, than, but if they are not then we can start burning and throwing shit lol). Change policies, put more research into alternative medicines, stop giving hand outs and teach a muthafucker some life skills and give them some resources so they can get shit on their own.

I also agree with Candyman regarding the comment made to the effect that some of us will take part in this, shit those probably will be the one's who have the most passion-are military/former military, as they see the petty bullshit that this country spend a fortune on, and the fact that they seen so much destruction and death while actively serving the war, I can't imagine the anger and frustrate some of them may have, subconsciously floating around in their heads. The lies some of them were told to get sucked into signing on to the military, the GI bill not coming through on time, or as promised, and the list goes on.

[candyman]

okay, candyman, i want to engage you in this conversation, as you clearly are interested, but i have to ask...are we talking about the same thing here? just because i said i don't EXACTLY agree with direct action, doesn't mean i won't be on the front lines.

i think you might be a little confused. i may be wrong, but it seems to me like you are latching onto this idea of US (meaning anarchists) vs. THE GOVERNMENT (big business), in some kind of hand to hand, American Gladiator, mortal combat kind of scenario. this is fun to think about, but is not realistic at all. I don't even own a handgun, and the government has predator drones. it will NEVER come to US vs. THEM. they represent US...or at least are supposed to.

what im talking about here is not direct war with our government, that would be absurd and suicidal. i'm talking about hearts and minds here, changing peoples viewpoints. in this scenario, there is no NEED for a standing army. certainly not an invading army.

look, this idea isn't for everyone. it isn't supposed to be. some people NEED order, and laws, and to be governed....and that is fine. i don't. my comrades don't.

i understand your position, if you are indeed a soldier like i assume you are, and that this is natural for you to react to an idea such as this in the manner you are. if it comes down to that, and our government starts shooting kids in the street, you better fucking believe you will have an uprising. i would like to think that not even the most right wing tea partier dipshit would stand for that. not to mention, i don't think most soldiers, at least the ones i know, would fire on american citizens. it would never come to that. and if it does, you really need to ask yourself who you are fighting for. do you fight for the government? or do you fight for the people?

i guess that is something you need to ask yourself.

Oh hell no I am not talking about a direct military action. All I am saying is that if you manage to get a movement like this off of the ground that you would develop some enemies.

I can't speak for everyone else here...but if if came to a time where an order came for us to go against the people there would probably be alot of hesitation. Its supposed to be "Death to the Wicked" not death to anyone they tell us to hunt.

[hunhee]

Oh hell no I am not talking about a direct military action. All I am saying is that if you manage to get a movement like this off of the ground that you would develop some enemies.

I can't speak for everyone else here...but if if came to a time where an order came for us to go against the people there would probably be alot of hesitation. Its supposed to be "Death to the Wicked" not death to anyone they tell us to hunt.

Wow, you're thinking like a normal person, but isn't the military specifically set up for following orders, not to think for yourself? You're following the orders of your superiors, if the government set up the military to think for themselves, then none of you would be there. The basic purpose of the military (and the reason why they sign on the young) is because they have not lived life enough to see all sides of a situation, if they did, no one would fight. They do not train you to see that the people throwing bombs at you are people, sons of someone, who love, have their own lives, they have families, they have children, they are people. You see them as the ENEMY and you are to eliminate the ENEMY. They (the enemy) have also been broken down mentally to see you as the same.

I'm not saying "all military guys don't think for themselves" I'm saying they break you down mentally and rebuild you. They want killing machines, and rightly so, look at the situations they have to put you in. They try to break you down so you can do the heinous things you need to do to do your job. War is not beautiful, it's despicable, I'm not saying that sometimes it's not needed and that I don't support the military.. I love that someone is out there fighting for my safe secure way of life, but you see the enemy, and it is all black and white.. If they told you to shoot on civilians, your job is to shoot civilians, they can turn anyone into the enemy. They can tell you anything "these people are terrorists" blah blah.. can you see that line of thought?

I'm just trying to help set the scene. You say you would never shoot your own, but you're trained to follow orders. Some may decide not to go through with it, but they wouldn't have their job for long, and obviously their training was for naught.

As for this whole situation, I can see what you're (LoTek)getting at, you're right there are a select group of people who really don't need a governing party to tell them what is right and what is wrong. There is some inherent logic and common sense that people are born with, but most people in society do not have this line of rationalization. Common sense is completely not common (at least that's what I see in most people).

Rules and laws were formed out of fear, I have come to the realization that religion (sorry to offend anyone) is set due to fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of one's own mortality. Fear that if there isn't a rule stating "thou shall not kill" people would go killing other people, because they feel someone else is infringing on their own rights. We currently have laws set (which I consider most of them common sense) and people follow them because there's a monetary penalty, or physical penalty if we don't follow them. Again, fear rules us. In a state of anarchy, you don't believe that fear will rule us? Pandora's box has been opened, there is no going back... but it's a nice thought.

I really have a lot to say on this topic, and this is a really good one.. but alas, I lack the time to go on.. Thanks

Edited September 4, 2010 by hunhee

[DJ Nocker]

The idea of "Anarchy" is fantastic. Although it is impossible, and for anyone to believe otherwise is really just naive/pathetic.

[candyman]

Yep they do train you to become killers and they break you down. But that is the basics so that they can start with something. If they didn't do any of that you would have trouble doing anything...following orders, shooting back, finding cover...you need to be a machine.

However, we do have to think for ourselves we can't just think. Sure everything for combat is built in and some orders are just automatic but other are not. Because we are trained we shoot only at those we are ordered to shoot at. Yeah there are civilian casualties but...well the whole combat thing turns everything upside down.

Chances are that if...IF something like the above scenario happened the military, especially the enlisted, would probably think twice about following orders IF the orders were given. See, the military would probably be the only barrier left for the government to hide behind if anarchy would start...and like I said we can take care of ourselves. You can't toss a soldier into the field with minimal equipment and NOT expect him to think.

Until all that happens...unlikely...I will continue to follow orders which for now just consist of going to and from the DFAC in an orderly fashion and having my uniforms in serviceable condition.

[LoTek]

Once again i think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on the definition of anarchy. Anarchy is not chaos and lawlessness. Anarchy is not mad max. Anarchy is a group of people working together to accomplish a common goal, based on mutual respect and mutual ambition. It's difficult to distill it to such a statement, it is actually far far more complicated than that, but the heartbeat of anarchists is simply working together to build a better world.

and i will refute the argument that it is naive and pathetic to think it could work. it IS working. there are anarchist organizations in every major city (aside maybe from detroit :/ ) that make it work everyday. there are programs that function solely on an anarchist/mutualist philosophy. Food Not Bombs operates in most major cities. Food Not Bombs provides absolutely FREE, delicious, healthy vegetarian food to ANYONE who wants it. no strings attached. There are bicycle repair shops that charge NOTHING to fix your bicycle. a step beyond that, these facilities teach YOU how to fix your bicycle, empower you, teach you a skill, and hope that you will teach others. There are free demonstrations on knowing your rights, free puppet shows for children, common houses shared...free of rent and obligations (other than respectful ones, such as cleaning up after yourself and whatnot.) it IS working. it works everyday. A shared meal with friends, where everyone brings something and prepares a meal together....that is anarchy in action.

anything that subverts the traditional paradigm of 'you want it? you PAY for it!', is anarchist. anything that subverts the captalist ethos of commerse above all, the bottom line ruling, the share holders, that is anarchy in action.

anarchy teaches us that there are alternatives to the current dominating system. (domination being key) you don't have to exploit one another to get by. furthermore, i think you will find that you enjoy people (in general) much more when you do NOT exploit them, and you yourself are not exploited. you can develop healthy relationships based on mutual trust and understanding, and not 'what have you done for me lately' thinking.

imagine a world where you are justly rewarded for what the work you have done. the work to output ratio is stacked in your favor. you aren't scraping by with the minimum wage that your masters allow you, you actually make MORE for doing the same amount of work. i worked in factories for 10 years, i know that the harder i work, the more the company made. did i see any of that? did i see a profit share program? did my hard work benefit me at all? no, i made the same amount of money regardless if i pushed out 10 units or 100. WE are the ones doing the work, does the company deserve to make ALL of the profits? THAT is the current way things work. That is capitalism, my friends. they exploit you for profit. does the company care if you are sick, or a family member dies, or you need a day off to spend with a lover? absolutely not. they care that you are not there to create more meaningless product that they can shove down the throats of the people. products we probably don't need.

there ARE alternatives. Kat said it best...learn a skill. i now am in a job (tattooing) where i am paid fairly for the work i do. i have a skill, people want that skill, and i give them a product they are happy with and i am fairly compensated for my unique skill. no one is exploiting anyone, everyone can leave the table happy. THAT, my friends, is anarchy in action.

i haven't even come close to fairly describing the ideals that i live by. i have only scratched the surface, but it's a difficult thing to boil down into a catch-phrase or even a simple declaritive statement. Not only that but my thoughts and ideas on the subject are changing every day.

And i couldn't be happier with that. -

[LoTek]

Fantastic short films about the subject at hand. Text taken from Days of War - Nights of Love by the CrimeThinc collective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYym554_Vmg

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

[hunhee]

I guess the catch phrase we're all getting stuck on is our own definition of Anarchy (I know I have my own definition). I see anarchy as a system without laws, without rules, without government. What is government than a bunch of people we put into power that are placed there to supposedly protect the interests of the ones who can't protect themselves..the meek, the general public (trust me, I know everyone has their own agendas, and the "ideal" is lost) but give me something to work with here.

The other problem I have is that you (LoTek), yourself in your second post even state "10 different anarchists will define anarchy differently" How do you have shared ideals when not even anarchists share the same ideals? To me, what you're describing, is more of a co-op. It works on a small level as you describe, but in the large picture, it really doesn't work so well.

Socialism to me is like a giant co-op, unfortunately there's always some jackass that can't undo his own greed, and thus socialism doesn't work (not the way the idealists see it working). One of our basic human natures is greed, take the greed out of the human equation, then you can have your wonderful state of Anarchy. Unfortunately, I know very few people who do things solely to benefit others. Trust me, if your form of anarchy worked, you can count me into the ranks. Even in my own idealistic views, I don't see this working. On a small level, yes, I see it working. In fact, in some companies this ideal works (co-ops).

It seems you want the world to go back to that "tribal" mentality, where like minded people associate together, with a common goal, survival. Unfortunately technology has taken the "basic human survival" practices out of the average man.

I don't know if you're familiar with the writings of Daniel Quinn, (who is actually one of my favorite authors). He describes how we have so far lost the ideals of the past (when I mean past, I mean hunter/gatherer past), and we are so entrenched in our own lazy self destructive wasteful natures, that we can never ever go back to a time where we used to GIVE to the world, nurtured mother earth, and we started to TAKE from the world, thus paving the way for the end. We have lost our ways, and the way we're going, there will be no way to regain what it is we've lost.

*sighs* umm.. yeah, well I think I'll just remove myself from this discussion, your idealistic ways are actually kinda refreshing, but even your ways aren't going to get us back to Eden.

[the eternal]

I'm ACTUALLY making a short post here. And giving full disclosure about +1s, since theyre always anonymous.

I +1ed the initial post because I like your idealism even if I didnt agree with everything and I liked the creative way in which you put it, which no one seemed to appreciate.

Most posts are either dogmatic, cliched, or boring. I was entertained, which should still count for something.

And I +1ed Hunhee because she was very insightful and if there's one thing that we can never have too much of, it's insight.

(I could derail things and go on and on about the actual merits of bureacracy, law and order, and well-regulated capitalism, but I think I'll just leave at this)

Good luck with the revolution!

[LoTek]

I guess the catch phrase we're all getting stuck on is our own definition of Anarchy (I know I have my own definition). I see anarchy as a system without laws, without rules, without government.

Really, that's close. Maybe not without Rules...but certainly without laws. I mean there is still common sense involved. You can't just rape and pillage, it wouldn't be tolerated.

The other problem I have is that you (LoTek), yourself in your second post even state "10 different anarchists will define anarchy differently" How do you have shared ideals when not even anarchists share the same ideals? To me, what you're describing, is more of a co-op. It works on a small level as you describe, but in the large picture, it really doesn't work so well.

what i ment in that statement is that there are Green Anarchists, Anarcho-Syndalists, Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Socialists even Anarcho-Capitalists. All of them have a different agenda. if you ask me anarcho-commies and anarcho-socialists are kind of rediculous, why bring down one system of government to replace it with another? and don't get me started on Anarcho-Capitalists or Anarcho-Christians.

You hit the nail on the head with the Co-Op statement. That is at the heart of anarchist ideals. And that's true, our vision on anarchy doesn't work on a nationwide scale. not in the way you think of our current government working. It works in the sense that these Co-Ops, or cells, work together, building a network. Over here you may have a hub of printer, or a hub of blacksmiths, they trade freely between each other and there is a common bond. or you may have an entire collective made up of all different trades and skills, that work together for the good of the community. honestly, it does work. again i will point you to the Amish. if you study their culture they exist outside of our government, as much as a community can.

It seems you want the world to go back to that "tribal" mentality, where like minded people associate together, with a common goal, survival. Unfortunately technology has taken the "basic human survival" practices out of the average man.

Yup! many anarchists believe, and many scientists as well, that human beings function best as small tribes. self governing, self sufficient, sustainable. i mostly agree. basic human survival can be taught, and technology can help as well.

I don't know if you're familiar with the writings of Daniel Quinn, (who is actually one of my favorite authors). He describes how we have so far lost the ideals of the past (when I mean past, I mean hunter/gatherer past), and we are so entrenched in our own lazy self destructive wasteful natures, that we can never ever go back to a time where we used to GIVE to the world, nurtured mother earth, and we started to TAKE from the world, thus paving the way for the end. We have lost our ways, and the way we're going, there will be no way to regain what it is we've lost.

i will absolutely check Daniel Quinn out, seems right up my alley.

*sighs* umm.. yeah, well I think I'll just remove myself from this discussion, your idealistic ways are actually kinda refreshing, but even your ways aren't going to get us back to Eden.

A. I highly enjoy and value your posts. please re-insert yourself into this discussion. i certainly do not claim to be infailable, or even to have the best solution to this problem. i started this post as a discussion point, and i value ALL of your posts and opinions, even if, ESPECIALLY if, contradictary to my own. please continue posting!

B. We don't want to go back to Eden, we want a NEW eden!!

and really that just sounds cool. i don't believe in a utopia. by definition utopia doesn't exist. i certainly don't think anarchy is the PERFECT solution, there is no perfect society. it just feels right, makes the most sense to me. If government is forced coersion (it is) then the only sensible solution is a humanitarian approach. anarchism.

And Eternal....Thanks! i value your opinion too, so feel free to derail this discussion anytime you see fit. i would actually be interested in hearing a plus side to bureacracy, as i have never seen one. and anyone standing in line at the DMV will probably agree with me!

[Nelson]

Anarchy isn't impossible. People seem to forget that Anarchy isn't a form of government - it's the lack thereof, so it can't work, nor can it not work. With such large, concentrated populations anarchy would be very unpleasant and would most definitely result in chaos, however, and especially so with our dependence on technology. Civilization and our infastructure itself is what would make things difficult if we decided to abolish all forms of government. Religion would kind of be a monkey wrench in the gears, too. As that has been used to legitimize authority for a very long time, that AND, more importantly, the control of resources. So bascially, if the population thinned to prehistoric proportions and we became nomadic again, we'd have a shot at living peacefully, perhaps. Or at least have the opportunity to feel a little more freedom. I hope I haven't repeated what someone else has already said! I didn't wait to read all of the previous posts! I apologize in advance. Just putting my two cents in. Anyone ever read any Daniel Quinn?

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

Oh hell no I am not talking about a direct military action. All I am saying is that if you manage to get a movement like this off of the ground that you would develop some enemies.

I can't speak for everyone else here...but if if came to a time where an order came for us to go against the people there would probably be a lot of hesitation. Its supposed to be "Death to the Wicked" not death to anyone they tell us to hunt.

It's still there in the oath, to defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The average soldier at least has enough intelligence to know that if we declared martial law on our own people... that we would indirectly be enemies of the constitution. Just whether the basic troop has enough of a backbone to go against orders or not is a different story.

I have a lot more to say on this but I have to rush to work but I will say this for now. Hypothetically speaking, lets say this "anarchy" did kick off, yes martial law would most likely be declared to try to get things back in order. It would be at about this time where I'd flip my officers the bird and kick rocks. I live by my own principals and values. Fortunately though, this is all hypothetical speak. The thought of martial law being declared on the US is just as absurd as anarchy actually happening.

[candyman]

It's still there in the oath, to defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The average soldier at least has enough intelligence to know that if we declared martial law on our own people... that we would indirectly be enemies of the constitution. Just whether the basic troop has enough of a backbone to go against orders or not is a different story.

I have a lot more to say on this but I have to rush to work but I will say this for now. Hypothetically speaking, lets say this "anarchy" did kick off, yes martial law would most likely be declared to try to get things back in order. It would be at about this time where I'd flip my officers the bird and kick rocks. I live by my own principals and values. Fortunately though, this is all hypothetical speak. The thought of martial law being declared on the US is just as absurd as anarchy actually happening.

Yeah it would be a very unlikely scenario but we do have to prepare for everything. We had a discussion about this with our BN Commander once...he didn't really say anything directly but it did sound like he might also stick to his personal orders to defend the PEOPLE on the country...but then again I could be wrong.

As long as they promise to issue me my Dress Blues instead of having me pay for them and continue to develop the new combat uniforms complete with the improved gear I will give the government my best and most loyal service. Hell, the only time I would ever thing of not doing that would be the martial law thing...which again is very unlikely.

[Epic_Fail_Guy]

Yeah it would be a very unlikely scenario but we do have to prepare for everything. We had a discussion about this with our BN Commander once...he didn't really say anything directly but it did sound like he might also stick to his personal orders to defend the PEOPLE on the country...but then again I could be wrong.

As long as they promise to issue me my Dress Blues instead of having me pay for them and continue to develop the new combat uniforms complete with the improved gear I will give the government my best and most loyal service. Hell, the only time I would ever thing of not doing that would be the martial law thing...which again is very unlikely.

This is going a bit off topic here but the army can't make a proper uniform to save their asses. these "ACU's" are complete garbage stitched to ate up ass. They should have taken an example from the Marines when they switched their uniform to digital, they got it done right the first time.

To clearify things I'm going to post the actual deffiniton of Anarchy..

1) A state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)

2) Anarchy (from ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following: * "No rulership or enforced authority." * "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.

So it's pretty basic and simple, no authority over you or anyone else. This would be rather not a beautiful situation, but a brutal, ugly situation full of dispair. Lack of authority would unleash the monsters in most people. Riots, rapes, looting, killing. Have you ever seen a civilization without rule? It gets pretty damn savage. Some, if not most, would only be in it for themselves. Also, It wouldn't be long at all before immediate muscle makes its appearance with a hostile takeover. The only way to be truely free as you put it, Lotek, would to be a total hermit. For as long as you are with one or more persons, you all will eventually develop a ring leader to lead the crowd, rules will get put in place, and like every other society, will eventually if not already, grow corrupt and crumble. We cannot have an infallible system for we aren't even perfect. The idea and theory of anarchy fits right in there with communism in the principal that it works in idea only, not so well in reality.

[WhiteLines]

I don't think that the current system of government, society, and ecomony is anything at all what the founding fathers had in mind... and our world today is so vastly different from theirs that they probably could not begin to imagine it turning out like this. The founding fathers had some swell ideas but over the years this system has grown ever larger, more perverted, and more deeply rooted... I reckon that the majority of people out there nowadays could not possibly imagine living any other way. I would like nothing more than to live an idealized existance without massive governments and corporations, to live in small tribal co-operatives, and to have real freedom... but i feel that not even a citizen uprising could bring down the beast that has been born from capitalism. Capitalism has become massive and corrupt... and for many people, it is all that they know and thats a hard thing to break away from. And the world itself has gotten larger as well. Nowadays you have a single city with damn near the population of the original 13 colonies packed into it and then some... Anarchy, co-ops, and tribal lifestyle do work well on a small scale... but today we don't have small scale, we have a population out of control. And with such a large dense population ,if there was not one large pervasive system binding them together it would become chaos... opposing ideas would clash together, many of those who grew up in a greedy capitalist system would not be able to let go of their greed, petty differences would lead to open conflict, etc... I fear that the only way we could get back to a utopian tribal existance would be in the aftermath of a planetary catastrophe, in which the population had been set back enough that peaceful semi-anarchist tribes could prosper. Capitalism and government have grown massive and it will be no easy task to do away with them... through uprising alone it would take more than a generation to bring the system down. Greed-heads and profiteers will continue to attempt to rebuild the system that gave them wealth and power... and still others may take advantage of the power vacuum and become greedy and powerful for the first time of their lives. In a world so large with so many different ideologies a revolution would be no easy task. Things will never again be like they were for our ancestors but it isn't impossible for our decendants to live a more utopian life... it certainly won't happen overnight though. Viva la revolution.