I think the posts saying we must all follow some particular version of anarchy were from just one or two people posting repeatedly. Someone was stirring the shitpot basically. The rest of us were trying to have a conversation to learn from each other.
Steve - 26 03 08 - 18:36

I don’t like the style of the post, it’s to insulting and exagerated. However, there is one point which could be considered a real critic: who has the right to definite what anarchism is and what not?
In germany, where I live, there is one anarchist collective which is really critical towards every kind of dominance, even the kind of hidden dominance which hides inside anarchist meatings, which gives some people more power to influence the consensus than others. Every consensus contains these problems, thats why they try to avoid consensus, where it is possibile, towards more variety. This collective has decided not to attach to one word, one logo or the kind, because a logo allways needs a consensus what is meant by it and that allways means a bit of mastership, unfreedoom, inclusion and exclusion, uniform. Thats why they also dislike anarchist clothing style. Although they are the most consequent anarchists of germany, they don’t call them like that. They call them kind of "dominance-critical" oder "authority-critical" (in german its "herrschaftskritisch" comming from the sociological definition of "dominance" against "power" by Max Weber). (hp: http://www.projektwerkstatt.de ,german but colourful)

For me, this kind of thinking has also its disadvantages, like the one that it is much harder to attract people, if you don’t use style, logos, words like anarchy. On the other hand, I find these ideas inspiring, because they are really consequent.
And that point I noticed at anarchy.net: it is often written: anarchy is this, anarchy is not that… I think that depends. Only a very few things you can write "anarchy is… ". Often it may be better to write: "for us anarchy means…".

Anyway I like your style and way to regard things! Here in germany it is so hard to use the term "anarchism", most of the people using it are drunk punks throwing with empty bottles. Even the radicals mostly prefer calling themselves "undogmatic radical left".
philip () - 28 03 08 - 04:24

You know, the thing that angers me the most is that how movements such as this tends to attract insubordinate teenagers who are only interested in shock value of it all.

All through history, humans have bickered over the most INANE and trivial things; it’s in our nature! People like thinking that they are right and they will want to defend their ideals. And I’m sorry to say this, but we are no different in some cases. Hell, I know that I love a good debate, but the thing is, it’s a DEBATE, not an argument in which one person forces their opinion on another. What I suggest for this site is for people to be allowed to upload their own posts so people can pick and choose what to read and then discus it. Forums are nice and all, but if people were able to submit posts it would make things much enjoyable. For one, there would be more material updated more regularly and we would get the chance to explore more ideas from our peers.

-JN.
Jasmine Naqvi () - 29 03 08 - 09:31

People will never be able to govern themselves and be free of government until there is a major shift in collective thought regarding hate and ignorance. You don’t have to say the four letter word to make a peaceful point, it just makes you look ignorant. And as long as we remain in that kind of ignorance nothing will change, you will be raging until you die. It has to be about inspiring people to love instead of hate. There are tons of examples of hatred also, I just gave you one. When you are angry you are portraying a form of hatred. Hatred has to be eradicated by everyone and the only way to make such a monumental task happen is by each one of us realizing that even unintentional ignorance such as raging against anything or using stupid abusive language equals hatred. Think about it, I almost think that we have forgotten what love is, and that is very sad. When I say unintentional I mean it is very subtle, one has a tendency to think that what they are doing and saying could never be ignorant or hateful, we like to think of ourselves as always being right but I tell you this now nothing will ever change in any monumental way UNLESS EVERYONE STOPS RAGING!!! (CEASING THE VICIOUS CYCLE) AND INSPIRES OTHERS TO SHOW COMPASSION AND LOVE. We definitely have it in us to do but life has become a vicious hatful cycle and at some point people will have to break that cycle and the only way to break it will be massive amounts of people inspiring others to love or to be compassionate with each other. Now it won’t be a massive amount of people at first but we can get there. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE!
Vickie Hesiler () - 31 03 08 - 04:37

Vickie, that was one of the most well thought out statements that I have read by anyone who is not a poet or a philosopher. But, I must say that even by suggesting that the only way that people will be free to govern themselves is that they must all think the same way is showing the same ignorance you preach against. Even with governments people will always feel that they are justified in what they do and say and by trying to change them it only serves to enrage and set them against you even more. The only way we can ever be free is for each person to accept whole heartedly who they are and in doing so accept those around them for who they are. Only by loving one self can that love spread to others, and only by understanding one self can you understand that people are different and so will always be. However, this does not mean that we as human beings are incapable of living without government, I just don’t think we’re ready, yet.
Lebo () - 05 04 08 - 13:31

I agree with the acceptance of those around us for who they are no matter how perplexed we feel by who they are, I do think we can always learn something about our own selves that we didn’t really realize about ourselves yesterday and those things that we learn and know about ourselves make no doubt about it are completely inherent in every single person on this planet, no matter if they appear to be the best guy in the world or the most hated. We always like to say well that couldn’t be me, I venture to say that I am just as capable of Capital Murder as the Murderer sitting on death row. I am everything and I do not like to limit my capabilities. I completely agree that people tend to always feel justified in what they do and say, herein lies the problem, a lot of people are not really willing to accept that they could be wrong and sometimes some of those people hold office in high places. What can do? We need to come to a collective learning in regards to how to treat other people (Do Unto Others), this is where any form of hatred and anger must be realized as something that has to be eradicated by everyone. Maybe we have to begin with our young. maybe it’s too late for anyone over the age of 10. This is what I mean by my suggestons of everyone thinking the same way. Is it too much to ask that everyone remember how to love instead of hate? And again this would be a monumental task that would probably have to start with the very young.
[Vickie Heisler] - 10 04 08 - 12:54

This is all wrong. Punk and violence has become the connotation for which people use to associate with anarchy, but it is wrong. When the people write about “what anarchists should believe”, they are merely stating what they interpret to be anarchy, and it doesn’t mean that all anarchists should follow it.
That being said, I believe in personal choice as well as free speech. Although I am pro-anarchy, I am also a Christian; I don’t believe in giving up my religion for a belief against rulers. I would sound to be a hypocrite, but I believe that God is not a leader, rather, God is a father, with whom anyone can believe IF THEY WANT TO.
I believe also, that this site does not dictate how anarchists should live, rather, it is a place where anarchists can feel they belong with people like them; not many anarchists live where I do.
The motif of belief is what I use to describe to keep an open mind when dealing with beliefs of any kind, and that true anarchists are the ones that lead their life as they speak, regardless of what they are thought of, and none of these comments should have affected any true anarchist, because true anarchists should know what is right, whereas poser punks will be first to fire back insults and defense at the narrow-minded people posting such comments on our site.
kevin () - 10 04 08 - 17:49

The problem with anarchist thought is that you can turn a nation into an anarchy. Impossible; what is the use of forcing anarchy on people who desire capitalism? Anarchist principle dictates that they are entitled to it. Anarchy can only work for those who desire it; therefore, it can only work in a nation specifically created for the purpose of establishing it.
Dan K () - 10 04 08 - 19:48

“anarchy is a war on ignorance” emma goldman…

as an anarchist i advocate the merciless removal of ALL institutions… that means even those pesky little anachist collectives. i am of the opinion that unless you are willing and able to take your freedom you do NOT DESERVE IT!
this doesn’t mean protesting and organizing. i mean go out there and take what you want… i do advocate chaos in society because at this point society is full of dogmatic ideals that form the basis for all things… your peace will never come, not because man isn’t capable but because man doesn’t want it… if everyone got along we’d never grow. nothing would expand… there have been many different forms of anarchy, anarcho-syndaclism mutualism collective anarchy, etc. but all these proved flimsy enough to be blown away without even an after thought.

anarchist complain endlessly about how people “don’t understand” and say things like “if they would just listen for a second” it’s the same statements uttered by those highschoolers that lash out in a desperate cry for attention while screaming they just want to be left alone. why is this?

aldous huxley said “freedoms are not given they are taken, most often by force”

i think its time for the world to consider what it means to be free and how they plan on acheiving it for THEMSELVES!
Nathan Counts () - 11 04 08 - 05:32

We can tolerate all manner of variations in our ideas, but not ones that are fundamentally against the base of the idea. Anarchy is about liberation and equality, not the racism groups like national “anarchists” support. You can cry about it all you want, but you’re still an insignificant strand of the movement and those of us who actually understand the history and theory will continue to oppose you at every opportunity, be it on your forums or in the streets. The more you whine and name-call, the more you look the fool. Keep it up.
tosser - 13 04 08 - 06:32

I agree we need anarchy,the rebeling may be brutal but it is needed to stop the oppression,then peace can begin to take hold.
>>>Forte.exe>>>
Forte.exe () - 13 04 08 - 09:17

anarchy is about the individual and what the individual believes really!!! what would you call me? hypacrit
bredan schmitz - 21 04 08 - 19:56

No brenden. Your just Retarded. all these Fuckin Posers are ruining what it means to be an anarchist.
Jim - 15 05 08 - 11:35

I find that quite overdramatic, to be honest. However, they do have a few points, especially in that there are no wrong answers.

An Anarchy is, in reality, unstructured and can only be expected to fall in time, just as every other country has done at some point or will soon do (if not again). I am truly an Anarchist and find the thought of a true Anarchy quite interesting and worth testing, but I have a strong enough hold on reality (surprisingly) to focus on serious points that many seem to ignore, most of all justice. Instead of a true anarchy, I find a new form government (for an Anarchy is not truly a form of government, just a principle of which a nation could be possibly following) should be put into order, one based on many if not all principles of an Anarchy, only making changes so that it could hold up to the necessities that every country has. It could be a fixed version of democracy, if that makes it easier for others to understand. For in truth, from some things I’ve read on here, I get the idea of fascism or Nationalsozialism (Nazism) mixed in with a true Anarchy foundation, which I find would be hard for just about anyone to accept if you’ve read up on it all, especially Nazism.

And, on another more random note, I see there’s a tab for a Wiki page. That immediately raises questions for me, for anyone who has a Wiki account can go on there and say whatever they want, therefore who are its readers to know the truth from opinions and lies? ....Just thought I’d say something about that, too.

-Venom
VampireInsanity - 24 05 08 - 09:49

Well VampireInsanity,
On your point about Nazism, though you are right in some respect, you forget that that and anarchy are also opposites. Nazism and fascism describe that you must obey your country and put it first. Anarchy theoretically implies that you could do whatever the hell you wanted.

On your wiki point, that is the beauty of anarchy. The fact that anyone can alter the page to say whatever it wants. An anarchy would be much like this in the sense that ideas spread like wildfire, and you have to sense what you think us right, and verify everything else. The wiki, in a strange and abstract way, is like a mini model of an anarchist society.

And whoever is spamming up this wall, please stop because it’s pissing the SHIT out of me. If that’s humanely possible, anyway…
kevin () - 24 05 08 - 12:12

OH MY GOD, THERE IS A LOT OF SPAM HERE.

Anyway….

Anarchism, as unstructured as it is accused of being, is in fact quite sustainable. Taking a point from fascism, if you are vehemently opposed to all forms of hierarchy, etc., then you have quite a strong buffer against its encroachment. So far as I can tell, anarchists as a whole are vehemently opposed to hierarchy, and they try to pass that on to their children. Call it indoctrination, but any values passed down or taught are indoctrination and not necessarily a bad thing. Tone down the indoctrination and give room for free thought, free expression, and free association, and you avoid the negative implications of that fascist concept. Also, anarchists employ various means of collaboration, organization, consensus, decision making, etc., all based on mutual respect and free association. If you don’t like something, or somebody, don’t involve yourself (excluding, as our german friend pointed out, pure anarcho-individualists).

And again I find this article to be very condemnatory and harsh. If your goal is dissension within the ranks of anarchists, you guys are doing one hell of a good job.
[Le Reveur] () - 22 06 08 - 02:32

I agree with this post. I’ve been shocked by the intolerance and hatred of some anarchists to those who don’t agree with them. Like, BDSM. There’s a thread going on in the forum I just joined about whether or not BDSM would have to be banned in an anarchist society…you have GOT to be kidding me. And there are anarchists who blatantly insult and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. If that continues I don’t think anarchy will ever work because why would anyone want to become an anarchist when anarchists are so cruel and mean to them? And how will it ever work if anarchists forget the very ideals they are fighting for and reject anyone who has a different opinion than themselves?

Great post.
Yvette () (URL) - 17 07 08 - 15:39

We should agree, if we want to accomplish.
Chuck Maurer (URL) - 19 08 08 - 19:40

the ideas in this are really inspiring. i always though working in a comunicial area works better than a system of oppression. however, inpiring as this piece of work is, its still an arguement. word it different and it’s a debait again. another thing i’d like to point out is that when we (anarchists) say hate or express anger it is usually towards injustice and the sin in a political establish ment… thats all right untill comunist joe has a fight with capitialist jim were there are two comunities involved. how do we find justice in a society like that. we are going to have to have a justice system (hopefully far less corupt than the one at present). i dont mean to say “anarchy sucks and will never work” because that is utter bollix! however it seems that the people in anarchy.net have spent most of their time prooving that anarchy solves some if not most of the problems of todays society, but how are we going to sustain an anarchic society in harmony? the human race are too corupt themselves to hold togetherany form of leadership or autharity. just think of all the things you have done in a month. now think of all of them things that you’d probably wouldn’t have wanted people to see you doing/heard you say/ or seen or heard your thoughts … i think its fair to say that humans are always likely to screw up and to make wrong decisions and are too full of pride and jelousy to run a perfect society. however i agree that if i were to pick one this type of socity would be by far the best.

hope this wasn’t too biast or was just a rambling piece of crap! think of my views and when or if you criticise try not to be too harsh

FOR THE GOOD OF THE EARTH AND MANKIND!
idiot-thrasher () - 27 08 08 - 14:24