The Real Anarchists Are Not In The U.S. These Days

The Americans don't protest like the rest of the world, i think because they might not really believe in the protest. Check out this video comparason of protest videos.

http://arebellife.com/j/content/view/86/1/

 

Greetings da56 and well come to the forums,
An interesting assertion, and I must say one that I hope is true, as anarchy is about the best way to garuntee the extinction of the human race, it is an unworkable social framework given the global state of civilization.
Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow for people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
Well perhaps you have a better definition, as this one contains the nonsensical term "common sense", this definition, in my opinion, defines an immpossible phenomenon. However I would assert that no matter what you replace the notion of common sense with, anarchy is not a workable societal framework of Homo Sapients, most likely never has been, certainly with the state of current technology can't be now, although should the species get through what I see as its' adolescence, with out destroying its self, there are a few possible futures that might allow for it. I doubt it though.

Protest, particularly civil disobedience does not require anarchy to be it's motivation. In my opinion the main reason the psuedo attempt at revolution in the United States in the 60's, was not an actual thrust for revolution, and also failed, since it had no agreed upon replacement for the existant structure of government. What I think could succeed is a revolution to reenstate the original constitution.

One further item, and please do not take this as a personal affront, but although we may or may not have real anarchists, Americans who regularly make use of the WWW, I think, for the most part are sufficiantly aware of the dangers of that usage, not to activate a link posted by someone who has not introduced themselves, nor provided much information in their profile. I would advise if you would like to further educate us on your opinions, that you rectify both of these.
Take care, be well, and may peace, to the degree possible in this turbelent world, be yours
sine cera

 

I didn't think who I am is important and that is why i didn't fill in my profile. I thought to start a discussion where ideas are the central and only focus; who they come out of should make no difference, unless they are judged by the personality and not the content.

if you need to know who i am and i advise not knowing, so that our discussions can be without any preconceived ideas of the other person , i am the author of the linked blog . On the blog you can also find my full bio.

The definition of Anarchy varies as all the others systems. I have always defined it as the means to an end, and the end can be American Democracy, Capitalism, Communism or almost any social idealist system.

Anarchy should exist in the people to destroy groups that want to make the people unequal. If the people can not ALL be equal, then, Yes, Anarchy should "guarantee the extinction of the human race." I agree with you when you say "What I think could succeed is a revolution to reenstate the original constitution." But if it can't be reinstated, what then? That is the promise of Anarchy in the people, we ALL rage like animals or we ALL live equally civilized. The pragmatic "workable" solutions are the ultimate enemies to the individual and equality.

I posted this comparison of the way American anarchists protest to show that they are not true to their beliefs. I wanted to show how the American protester is beaten so bad that his only means of fighting is through an inherently corrupt system or sit-ins and peace protests. Our American system is so restrictive; it shows clearly through our protests.