WTF is with anarchy?

I've noticed that as well. It seems everyone defines anarchy differently.

 

how one defines anarchy is indeed the very crux of the question.
and yes, a great deal that popularly gets slapped with that as a title is entirely unsustainable. it is also an abuse of the concepts fundimental roots.

even the most micro of hierarcies, one person tyrannising another, or even the smallest number of others, as by 'lawlessness', is, in and of itself, the very antithisis of the concepts most fundimental intent.

nor does self serving destructiveness qualify for its positive potential.

it is only by the exercise of the self disipline to avoid causing suffering and harm that any such thing can ever exist.

 

I think anarchy can only work as a means, not an end.

 

+1 for TPS

 

I truly believe that a man who gets up in the morning like me, eats like me, loves like me, and takes a shit like me, shouldn't rule me.

I remember I had an argument with my grandmother who lived through WWII. She didn't like the way I act, I told her if people acted like me in her era WWII would have never happen, because no one would have obeyed an order.

Personally, I hope the old bitch is still rotting in her grave.

 

The biggest problem anarchy suffers from today is that it has become synonimous with things like the WTO protesters. No rhyme or reason, just black bloc riots. Most people are happy with what they have now in life at some level, and you can't convince them that anarchy will make it better. The most realistic direction for anarchy is to work towards a fundamental shift in the definition of the state without trying to work for an ideologically pure but fundamentally unrealizable goal of no governments.

A lot of self-styled anarchists forget that violence is inherently oppressive, and trashing people cars and destroying public services only make anarchy soured in the minds of the average person. Instead of trying to destroy the entire system, the most effective place in anarchy is using the system to destroy its most oppressive arms. You can't kill the hydra, but you can cut off a few heads.

 

Riot's are all fine and dandy, I know I've been in a few, but after some days or weeks the riot is over and nothing changes everything goes back the same, government is back in order, people live on with their lives forgetting the cause and the law under covers who their enemies are, usually by recapping video footage of the rioters eventually arresting them days or weeks later.

It reminds me of how many Barbarians lost wars with the Romain empire thousands of years ago, by going into battle with unorganized chants running to the slaughter.

In many countries specially police states like the US if an anarchist wants to survive they need to form smaller hidden groups. Sabotaging the governments main control function over the people which is not the military, nor police but the economy, and fear. Halting transportation like bombing subways, sabotaging railroads, political and news media assassinations are some of the few tactics an anarchist has in his arsenal from an over blown tyrant government.

What an anarchist wants is to wear down the system and demoralize the governments propaganda by bringing fear to the public that their government leaders cannot protect them. A giant government is already at a disadvantage from the start.

A good hypothesis is the sabotaging of railroad lines. After government controlled media reports the event of a freight train derailing due to "terrorist" forces there will be a public outcry. The government like in the U.S will react typically like they did at airports soon after 9/11 with security checks, and checking cargo. This impacts the foreseeable future, by slowing down the transportation of goods, products and then eventually the economy. What the government has down by their own undoing is subjective suicide.

I'm not going to get to far into, this is all in theory but I think you know where I'm going with this.

 

My thing is: who would enforce anarchy?

Even if the rules are governed by total democracy (terrible, idea, I might add); then "the majority" is still the oppressor.

There's no such thing as anarchy. There are always rules. From physics, to human nature. The gravity of this larger object pulls this object into orbit; the willpower of this person, overrules the meekness of this person.

 

Anarchy is not a a political nor social ideal but a method of action, cause and effect. It's through this action that anarchy occurs. A tearing down of a social structure that no longer works through the masses but will be executed by few. Wherever government or political ideology emerges after is in and of it's self, not anarchy. If the newly establish system does not function correctly then more anarchy must be inflicted.

 

What you are describing is terrorism, not anarchy. The U.S. is far from a police state. It is oppressive in many ways, but you can in no way take down a government by doing selfishly harmful things like sabotaging railroad lines. A public outcry against terrorism in that case would be absolutely justified. In the modern era you will never start a revolution in a country where most people take issue with either taxation or war, as opposed to, say, literally torturing people who try and form a political party.

The most privileged position in the world is that of those who would use anarchy as an excuse for selfish crime in a state that, in comparison to much of the world, is honestly not that bad.

Yes, the U.S. is bad, yes, pretty much all governments are bad and should burn, but if you think a riot is going to change anyone's mind except making people hate anarchists then you're far off the mark. Working selectively from within the system to bring it down is the only way that can happen. One of the only good examples of any direct action capable of anything is things like Wikileaks, which while directly harming nobody create outrage at the actions of the government.

Think how unanimously negative the public reaction to Wikileaks would have been if it had involved masked men storming into government buildings, setting them on fire, torching cars on the way out after running off with a bunch of files. As it is, the notion of a "victimless crime" is one of the most powerful things anarchic forces like Wikileaks can argue, notice how much of the rhetoric against them is insisting they put soldiers' lives at danger.

Being a selfish criminal thug isn't justified just because you have an ideology.

 

Your comment disappoints me. In theory through anarchy the end solution always justifies the means. Your example of Wikileaks is flawed. Since there exposure of secret American documents were filtrated to the public the group has been disbanded and the leader sent to prison, just give it time and the tiny stunt they brought upon them selves will not change any and all but be forgotten.

Your soft ball approach is discrediting to the anarchist methods. This is not productive but anti-productive measures and leans toward morbid cannibalism to the system.

This is not pure activism, community based on deception will only lead to failure, corruption, and suffering. Only true government cleansing can be proceeded.

Revolutionist have never been supported by large to the public. Anarchism only satisfies the few to help motivate the mass in the right direction toward the original plan. the total destruction of a government body, wiping the slate clean per se.

 

anarchy is a fictional situation created by punk musicians so they'd have something to bitch and moan about in their songs.

 

You're defining "anarchism is" which creates a problem, your definition completely ignores the existence of anarcho-pacifism. Additionally, the leader of wikileaks may be in prison but it did in fact help lead to revolution in some Arab countries. That is more than can ever be said for rioters torching cars. Forcing anarchy on people is inherently oppressive and is equally as bad as forcing many other systems of government on people. Nobody is leading a glorious anarchic revolution in a first world country, so you have a choice of either living in a fantasy or getting your head out of the clouds and seeing what real steps can be made.

Lunaverse, your comment is simply uneducated.

 

You're living in the past by some of your comments, first and for most places like France, Greece, the U.S are no longer first rate countries. The U.S per se has dramatically cut back on their military and law enforcement budgets. Massive police layoff's on a regular bases throughout the past year are of a current event. Some states like California are even asking they're government workers to work an extra day without pay because they don't have the funds for them. Others like Alabama solely rely on neighborhood watch for law and order because they can't afford city police in many counties.

The decline of law and order in the U.S the pass year or so are pushing way for 1,000's of gangs and anti-government militia groups to form all around the country. The government even stated at one point that they do not have the funds nor the human resources to track all of these groups anymore. Even now there are some spots in the U.S the law don't dare to trifle for these places are swimming in crime and anarchy.

What happen in Egypt had very little in the doing of the wikileaks group but more on the behalf of the people's expiration.

My comments are in theory, your logic is old and outdated.

 

welcome to utopia.

 

I'd rather you didn't attack the overall stance I take without getting a chance at a retort. I never mentioned France or Greece, and while you are correct about France, Greece could never really have been considered a first rate country. The government has never had the funds or resources to deal with internal threats, domestic terrorism has long been a problem and isn't a new development, and gangs have been a problem for decades.

Egypt wasn't the country I was referring to, Tunisia is the country whose revolution was referred to as the "Wikileaks Revolution." This created a revolution domino effect throughout the middle east. While obviously not solely the fault of Wikileaks, a peaceful anarchic move clearly played a role in bringing down a tyrannical regime. In contrast, torching cars and rioting in Toronto or Seattle has done very little other than to make "Anarchist" a slur to the average person.

Also, your first paragraph actually has very little to do with any point I made, and to address it the decline of law isn't the reason for an increase in gangs and crime, an increase in poverty and lack of education is for more to blame. Our police are massively funded, they're essentially small paramilitary forces, arguing we need more money for the police to reduce crime is like saying that the U.S. military needs Joint Strike Fighters to prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

 

Don't refer to my comments as uneducated and the double blade won't manifest.

Libertarian views nor humanitarianism should not concern an anarchist. The only focus should mainly rely on the break down of government, law, execution of current privileged and the extermination of enemies in power family bloodlines during the revolt no matter how long this may be. The fractures of poverty works in an anarchist favor and should be used in his/hers arsenal.

Anarchist are encouraged to participate in any means necessary to recoup funding for the cause even if the activities committed are criminal in nature. An anarchist needs to be constantly reminded that man made nor higher existence of law does not apply to them in a revolt.

Gangs are also an anarchist vessel, since gangs are independent variables and can be persuaded in alliance for exchange of currency or product. Gangs can act as a veil for other rebellious activities and establishing inside local community knowledge.

Wikileaks and what happen in Tunisia were not anarchy, an anarchist should never expose himself nor his/her group to the public. No figure head should be in position but a spreading of "Cells" should occur throughout the groups. Communication should be limited to old outdated technology methods from group to group, such as the act it's self against the public or messages in classified ads within, newspapers, magazines. Some may exist in blogs, web forums if not focused on the group.

If act's occur then the act it self should be blamed on enemy group actives that oppose the cause these groups range from current religious extremist (Islam), racist groups (KKK or Black Panthers), U.S Policy, Chinese Communism. Never on the anarchist group it self.

 

You keep saying "Anarchy should be" and then expressing your opinion as if it were fact. Wikileaks is clearly anarchic, just because it has a central figurehead doesn't mean it isn't. Most of what you're describing are anti-government terrorist cells, which while it's possible they're Anarchists doesn't mean that is the only definition of Anarchy.

Ideological purity is unattainable and you'll only cause more suffering if that's what you try and go for, and your comment about executing a ruling class is clearly opposed by most philosophical schools of Anarchy. What is generally espoused is removing the means for a ruling class to exist as a ruling class, not removing their right to exist as people. That would by definition be un-anarchic.

More importantly than any of this though is your insistence that "anarchy is" which completely ignores the long existing tradition of Anarcho-Pacifism.

 

there is no violence implicit in the idea of no government

in fact, there may be less violence in the idea

if people can co-exist cooperatively and peaceably, which i have yet to see

actually, you don't need a revolution, you just need to stop following rules

 

"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

the less people there are in power, as per a representative republic such as the united states, the less views there are in all aspects of life. The less accepting those in power will be to things outside their view. The more they will try to force those they oversee to follow their views on the way they should live, and right and wrong.