Anarchist's Manifesto

[Axle_Kink]

Looks like a refreshing change from usual posts/threads/sub-forums/etc. on the subject. I must say I'm impressed.

As for anarchists being inherantly incapable of organization. . . total bunk. Sure, it comes a bit less easily to some groups (Individualist Anarchists for example), but for others, rallying together is almost central to their beliefs (Anarcho-Comunists).

On promoting Anarchism: Slow, gradual change is the way to go. After all, for an anarchist civilization of any sort, one needs a well educated, at least semi-moral populace (sp?), and that takes time to develop (as, lord knows, it's really hard to find such people within any given civilization, let alone form a civilization of them or create more). Further, certain ideas (i.e. the need for an organized government and associated beurecracy [sp?]) need time to fade out of existance. Despite the fact that this is "a world governed by the agressive use of force", changes enacted purely by force without a social mandate are rarely successful in the long run. Those that are are quickly followed with a program of some sort to adjust people to the new way, and even then, this isn't a failsafe.

Yeouch. Sorry for rambling on like that.  

[Rilriia Kilurden]

Weazel

Just so you know you've all got anarchy backwards. Anarchy is a gov't with no gov't, the perfection ideal, Utopia.

The chaos everyone thinks of is the propaganda of nixon's time, throwing mud on the name of a revelution to demoralize anyone who could be a potential advocate or associate of the potential uprising. Though the chaos is partly involved in the concept.

Anarchists believe that to over throw a gov't they must find intelligent, strong, brave, like minded people to help demoralize a gov't's people and create chaos. Using the tools of the forgotten or hidden or ignored spy-game. This tactic of using chaos to create chaos to create chaos to overthrow a gov't all within an organized fashion can be seen in the move "fight club". Though this only portrays the begining of the means.

At no point would an actual anarchist intentionally harm or injure anyone. They hold a high respect for mankind, even if it slides down a slippery path into moral abyss.

Unfortunately the collective of people who become interested in anarchism tend to be more interested in the lawless, take no prisoners idea of an armeggedon rather than the peace on earth without rule idea which is anarchy.

The basic ideals of an anarchis can be found by reading in entirety, "Civil Disobidience" by Henry David Thoreau, of which almost all american literature classes are required to read an excerpt from. Though I warn you by no means is the entire text of this piece exciting or as uplifting as the excerpt is.

So any of you who think Anarchy's means of achievement is a contradiction of itself, you're wrong. You've been mislead as to what anarchy really is, though one thing that anarchist know and anyone who has ever heard of it is.... EXTREMELY NOT LIKELY GOING TO HAPPEN.

Most humans are to greedy, jealous, zealous, and stubborn to ever come to terms with a Utopian society.

I'm sorry, but that definition of anarchy is at best lofty and half-stated. While indeed civilility without law is stated, the utopian ideal (all hail Dr. Steel as next World Emperor) is more of reform than the other combined definitions. (See Webster's Definition 1:b - 2.)

Anarchy is defined as:

anarchy

Main Entry: an·AR·chy
Pronunciation: ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
Date: 1539
1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder
3: anarchism


I hate to say this, but without some form of laws the pariahs of the world would run even further amuck. Picture the L.A. Riots without the National Guard. (Which, I sadly lived through, just off of Hollywood Blvd. and Franklin Ave.)

I hail reform. I am trying to help Dr. Phineas Waldolf Steel take over the world. But anarchy is a further excuse to harm one another. Because quite frankly, definition 1:c cannot be had in the face of definitions of 1:b nor the whole of two 2.

It simply is not possible.

Quote:

"Nations have recently been led to borrow billions for war; no nation has ever borrowed largely for education. Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both." ~Abraham Flexner

I would also like to ask why it is not thought possible for an anarchist or a group of anarchists to organize? If the group in question meters out assignments, that has no bearing on assuming a political role of any sort.

According to the accepted definition of the word, one could feasibly be the Pope and be an anarchist--- assuming the Catholic Church were to relinquish their political ties... Which they're not, but you get my point.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Actually, anarchists are incapable of organising for the resaons Mikhail Bakhunin put forward in his fight against marxism in the International Workingmens' Association in the 1860's.

Anarchists are incapable of organising because they do not accept authority, well the consistent ones at least. By not accepting authority, even the authority voluntarily conceeded by the membership of a political party or union to its leadership, it denies itself the ability to do anyhting other than 'propaganda of the deed,' or, as it is known these days, terrorism: shooting ministers, bombing police stations, pointless violence at protests.

While those who engage in such are frequently heroic individuals, it is precisely because they only target the enemy, while refusing to organise their own side, that they cannot win.

Anarchism wants property to be socialised, and I have to say it again, refuses authority of one person over another, even if that authority is conceeded for a very specific period of time.
So I have to ask, what happens in a ship, where there has to be one commanding will. One could say that whenever a decision has to be made they will call a vote of all the people, crew and passengers, on the ship, but that imposes the will of the majority onto the minority. That is authority, even if by the will of the entire group, over the entire group without exception. The same goes for a trainline, or even more importantly, in the expected revolution.

How is the anarchist society meant to combat the survivals of capitalism when it refuses even temporary authority?
How are you meant to destroy the government of the oppressors when their hold on society crumbles enough that the oppressed are able, and willing to rise up?

The the revolutionary armies will not be able to do anything because they will be a mass of wills, not a mass of bodies guided by one over-riding will.
And violence itself, during the revolution, is authority packed into a small package. You will say to the capitalist 'give up your property or die' while pointing your gun at him. Is that not excersising authority? Moreover, is it not excersising authority over one who has not consented beforehand?

I ask you to look at this short work. On Authority by Frederich Engels.

Rilriia: Bringing out a definition like that is misleading. Anarchists use the term Anarchy to refer to the end-goal of their ideology, that is, a situation in which there is no state and no over-arching authority, be it of a minority over a majority, or the other way around.
By bolding 1b, 2a and 2b you are ignoring what they are actually talking about. While such dishonesty may be of value in EDP where people will agree with you in attacking the anarchists, here, in a subforum for anarchism, all it does is antagonise.
Any anarchist would look at that and bold 1a and 3, providing the definition of Anarchism itself as well.  

[OkamiKianah]

I do not believe anarchy actually means a utopia where everyone gets along. The freedom of anarchy is usually the freedom to live without laws and to live among chaos. In is not within the human condition to live peacefully with eachother and therefore the chaos would mean violence, rape, death. To live like nature intended without being coddled by society. If you can't hold your own then you will die. Some organized anarchists only organize to reach the destination of anarchy, usually anarchists already live on there own as a state and expect people to follow. Some people are more willing than others to take the risk and live in anarchy in realms outside of society. More people are ready for this than others.