Wouldn’t a middle ground be something like civil disobedience? Or would that be considered Anarchopacifistic also?
Justin Terry () (URL) - 17 02 09 - 19:29

If you mix the same ingredients in every time, then end result is always the same. I don’t see anything wrong with breaking some windows, and causing some uproar, but at the same time it always ends with the same results – De-education of the public at large due to media restraints. Anarchopacifism has it’s place, but the smaller number of people who share this view makes it an almost obsolete and slow strained out process. Then again I suppose the same could be said for Insurrectionary anarchism.

I can’t seem to find a valid middle ground between the two… Crack a window instead of fully breaking it? Pick up the tear gas and throw it into the trash? Block the streets with whatever you can find, but make sure you put it all back when your done…

The only way to really succeed is to educate about whichever view you have, and that is perhaps the only middle ground. It seems that each "version" of anarchism/anarchists will never agree as a whole, but as long as the foundation is the same- Once established we can build in whatever direction we see fit.
JesterDev - 17 02 09 - 22:29

Bingo!!! and we have a winner. Education of the masses is the correct answer. Regardless of whatever differences anarchists have with eachother, education of the masses is a shared duty. Once this is done, fuck it, let the chips fall where they may.
A.O.C. - 18 02 09 - 00:33

But in all honesty I want you all to debate with eachother to come up with points for either side. It amazes me that anarchists on this site get along so well with each other in comparison to other sites, and trust me that reflects alot on the intellect of everyone here. But debate is healthy, gets the brain juices flowin.
Hell, I will even play devils advocate.
Insurrectionists have single track minds that resort to direct action because coming up with alternate solutions to problems is a direct reflection on ones critical thinking skills and it is a lack of emotional control mixed with an addiction to adrenalin that pushes these people smash and burn things. Nothing more than children with a temper tantrum. (shhhh, I like the pretty lights)
A.O.C. - 18 02 09 - 04:39

i believe that the insurrectionists and the pacifists are both proselytizing, which i see as another form of ‘lobbying’, a key strategy in corruption. when trying to affirm one system over another, i tend towards objectivity if possible (for the individualists out there… somewhere) and if i have to become part of someone elses reality, i’ll jump in as a subjective naturalist (so i can try and experience the emotions/sentiment of the mob and break someone elses stuff).
[ummichas] - 18 02 09 - 06:30

since the universe culls EVERYTHING back to moderation EVERY time (over time), extreme solutions always get extreme results. and since extreme solutions take a lot of energy to push, bureaucracy is inevitable.

civil disobedience seems to be a middle ground of sorts – this is really funny – I can’t seem to find a valid middle ground between the two… Crack a window instead of fully breaking it? Pick up the tear gas and throw it into the trash? Block the streets with whatever you can find, but make sure you put it all back when your done…

the current system we have will implode anyways, whether we help it or not. when the time comes are you going to choose to be a leader, follower, or an individual? it’s kind of like choose you own adventure. the state fails me everyday, so i already treat it like it has already imploded. you can become an individual whenever you want.
[ummichas] - 18 02 09 - 06:43

oh yeah, AOC, i forgot to be objective. i’ll try to be an insurrectionist, here i go….

GRRRrrr.

ah, dang it! it just takes too much energy! i need an oppressive force to keep on filling me with righteous indignation…
[ummichas] - 18 02 09 - 06:50

As AOC has stated, the primary goal of either insurrectionary action or pacifistic action is geared toward the education of the people, ultimately. Insurrectionists do this with public displays of anger and destruction; these are effective means of broadcasting a message widely, as word of such activity spreads fast. Unfortunately, such activity also lends justification to the enemies of the people, who would scourge the rebellion from our bloody backs by whatever force they deemed necessary, and are made to appear just for doing so.

On the other hand, pacifistic action has a certain tendency not to address ‘righteous indignation’, which is a very useful sentiment for spurring people to effective action. People who have been very seriously wronged do not wish to just wait around for a situation to ‘work itself out’; they want justice! And rightly so. To deny a person their anger in such a situation is to deny them an aspect of their humanity, which is an unnacceptable abrogation of individuality.

I will make no effort to conceal my bias and prefference towards pacifism. That being said, I do not believe that insurrectionary and pacifistic actions are necessarily exclusive. The feelings and experiences and education that inform one shape the other equally and similarly, and the goals of either are much the same. Ethically speaking, there is a certain degree of responsibility that falls on a person of either persuasion. I say that the sentiment of that ethical responsibility should resemble the Hipocratic oath- “As to diseases make a habit of two things: to help, or to at least, do no harm.”
If in this example we are to say that our patient is ourselves, We the Proliteriat, we should then say that the disease is authoritarianism (in government and/or capital). It therefore should be our practice at all times to try and help the people and alleviate their pain from the system in which we all struggle. In situations where our actions cause only further harm, we should suspend the offending tactics and replace them with something less detrimental. But at no time should we suspend the treatment!

Our common ground is in our minds, comrades. We have learned what we know, and therefore we can also teach what we know. Remember always that people, even those heavily involved in institutional tyrany, are each unique individuals, with their own stories and struggles. By teaching what we know, widely and effusively, we become like the waves crashing upon a cliff face; while one wave may succeed in only converting a few individuals at a time, over time it adds up. Little by little, person by person, we can erode the face of centralized power. Once its base is gone, the slightest push will collapse the whole damn thing.
We are all bound by the duty of having our individual perspectives to spread them; we owe it to ourselves as well as those around us. It doesn’t particularly matter how one does it- just make sure to do it, and for the people’s sake don’t make things worse than they already are.
Hale - 18 02 09 - 07:51

Ummichas
You really are the yin to my yang, you individualist you, you complete me.
The other side of the coin.
The crazy dude outside Seven Eleven, with a Burger King crown on screaming at the cars that pass by that you are the king of the world and me being a passer by having to stop and talk to you out of sheer curiosity and amazement, that you have the ability to create your own reality. Please never leave, please. :)

And Hale, well spoken and well put, never fails.
A.O.C. - 18 02 09 - 10:39

as contradicting as it sounds, perhaps there is a time and place for both pascifist action and insurrectionary action. after all, the whole greek riots are what brought my attention to anarchy.
Boipuso () - 18 02 09 - 11:59

there isnt anything wrong with violence in self defence. but it will obviously be turned against us by the mainstream media. We as anarchists must watch our own actions as we wouldnt want them to be misinterpretted. Its just my opinion but i believe the best way to dismantle the system is to attack what the system claims to represent. Life Liberty and Property. The only one that i believe would have to be attacked is property. if the government cannot protect property, much more liberties would be taken away as a counter. That in itself should wake up alot of the blinded. And hell they dont seem to be doing the greatest job at protecting life. as old ben said “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” it will only get worse as well. With a little vandalism, destruction of valued property, and media outreach of our own it may be a good idea
AuthorityisSlavery - 18 02 09 - 14:29

AuthorityisSlavery-
I believe in democracy. As such, I do not believe that it would be a good idea to vest any single individual with the ability to cause rampant destruction; if a building is to be destroyed, I say that it should be up to the people who would be affected by that destruction to make the determination as to whether or not it should take place. Don’t you think it might be somewhat presumptuous for a single individual to unilaterally take action which does not affect that particular individual, but massively affects others? What gives you the right to make that choice?
Especially when you know that your actions will result in the deprivation of liberties, as your claim seems to indicate?
Hale - 18 02 09 - 16:05

aoc, join me on the dark side. it will change your reality. good, i like to be yin. and besides, if i left, you would get all blow’d up. dammit i have difficult work here.

it’s the states best interest to get the insurrectionists riled up and rioting once in a while. once they squash the riot, everyone feels safe again to go shopping, because that’s what we do. support the economy. ergo the state.

i sure get inspired when some anarchist comes and wrecks my stuff. it makes me want to embrace their effort for freedom from the state! it also inspires everyone within my social network to embrace that call to freedom. the first thing i want is state justice, so that i can have some talking head mediate my case before my peers, so that i can get my deserved retribution, because somethings were ruined in my past. especially my emotions, they need to be heard, because i desperately need my peers to commiserate with my loss, so that i can effect the appropriate sense of justice in my case. i want my stuff back! i worked so hard in this reality, i mean, these economic conditions, to get my stuff! how dare you wreck my property! i better phone the state police. only they can take care of me. 1 point for the state.

non sequitur: insurrectionists go to their nice, quiet lovely homes, and then spend a nice quiet evening drinking Molotov cocktails after a walk in the park. no! they throw them at other peoples stuff after summoning a mob! 2points for the state.

i live in canada, can someone tell me when the next insurrection is planned? oh, i see… it’s just talk. well, i’m going to stay home and educate myself, so i can help whoever, whatever, whenever through there own revolutions. if only those insurrectionists had some guidance, they could be really useful.
[ummichas] - 18 02 09 - 21:49

whens the next major event?
matt amery - 19 02 09 - 01:44

we will never have democracy while we have monarchies. anarchists of the world need to unite and change this gross injustice. CAPITALISM KILLS
matt amery - 19 02 09 - 01:48

violence in self-defense is justified second anarchists need a legal political backbone the CNT never reached her peak in Spain in those times whit out the help of her political backbone the FAI of course individualist anarchists fear the so called “tyranny of the majority” but that’s all crap all right wing “anarchism” is a paradox. For anarchists, such arguments are strange. Society already is run by thugs and/or the off-spring of thugs. Kings were originally just successful thugs who succeeded in imposing their domination over a given territorial area. The modern state has evolved from the structure created to impose this domination. Similarly with property, with most legal titles to land being traced back to its violent seizure by thugs who then passed it on to their children who then sold it or gave it to their offspring. The origins of the current system in violence can be seen by the continued use of violence by the state and capitalists to enforce and protect their domination over society. When push comes to shove, the dominant class will happily re-discover their thug past and employ extreme violence to maintain their privileges. The descent of large parts of Europe into Fascism during the 1930s, or Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973 indicates how far they will go. As Peter Arshinov argued (in a slightly different context):

“Statists fear free people. They claim that without authority people will lose the anchor of sociability, will dissipate themselves, and will return to savagery. This is obviously rubbish. It is taken seriously by idlers, lovers of authority and of the labour of others, or by blind thinkers of bourgeois society. The liberation of the people in reality leads to the degeneration and return to savagery, not of the people, but of those who, thanks to power and privilege, live from the labour of the people’s arms and from the blood of the people’s veins . . . The liberation of the people leads to the savagery of those who live from its enslavement.” [The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 85]

While the “tyranny of the majority” objection does contain an important point, it is often raised for self-serving reasons. This is because those who raised the issue (for example, creators of the 1789 US constitution like Hamilton and Madison) saw the “minority” to be protected as the rich. In other words, the objection is not opposed to majority tyranny as such (they have no objections when the majority support their right to their riches) but rather attempts of the majority to change their society to a fairer one. However, as noted, the objection to majority rule does contain a valid point and one which anarchists have addressed — namely, what about minority freedom within a self-managed society.

There is, of course, this danger in any society, be its decision making structure direct (anarchy) or indirect (by some form of government). Anarchists are at the forefront in expressing concern about it (see, for example, Emma Goldman’s classic essay “Minorities versus Majorities” in Anarchism and Other Essays). We are well aware that the mass, as long as the individuals within it do not free themselves, can be a dead-weight on others, resisting change and enforcing conformity. As Goldman argued, “even more than constituted authority, it is social uniformity and sameness that harass the individual the most.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 93] Hence Malatesta’s comment that anarchists “have the special mission of being vigilant custodians of freedom, against all aspirants to power and against the possible tyranny of the majority.” [Life and Ideas, p. 161]

However, rather than draw elitist conclusions from this fact of life under capitalism and urge forms of government and organisation which restrict popular participation (and promote rule, and tyranny, by the few) — as classical liberals do — libertarians argue that only a process of self-liberation through struggle and participation can break up the mass into free, self-managing individuals. Moreover, we also argue that participation and self-management is the only way that majorities can come to see the point of minority ideas and for seeing the importance of protecting minority freedoms. This means that any attempt to restrict participation in the name of minority rights actually enforces the herd mentality, undermining minority and individual freedom rather than protecting it. As Carole Pateman argues:

“the evidence supports the arguments . . . that we do learn to participate by participating and that feelings of political efficacy are more likely to be developed in a participatory environment. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that experience of a participatory authority structure might also be effective in diminishing tendencies towards non-democratic attitudes in the individual.” [Participation and Democratic Theory, p. 105]

However, while there is cause for concern (and anarchists are at the forefront in expressing it), the “tyranny of the majority” objection fails to take note of the vast difference between direct and “representative” forms of democracy.
Menace - 19 02 09 - 04:40

Menace: bravo and well said.
To add, perhaps unnecissarily: in a society wherin the primary unit of the structure is the Individual, terms like minority and majority would become essentially obsolete, useful only for the purposes of statistical information and academia. After all, how can there be a majority or a minority, when the decision making process is boiled down to effective self-management of each individual, with nothing surpassing self-determination in importance or efficacy? A person cannot simultaneously be majority and minority within their own self.
Hale - 19 02 09 - 10:42

Menace-Majority rule under the conceptual mentality of anarchism would still encompass leway for the individualist, or at least I would hope, as not to taint the spirit of anarchism. In that aspect I do not think that individualist would have anything to fear. I also second the ststement on the paradox of fearing right wing anarchists. but check under your bed for them, just in case, along with santa clause and the easter bunny.

Ummichas-A force that goes unchecked will persists without resistance indefinitly. Mankind will always produce tyrants
as long as society allows them.
A.O.C. - 19 02 09 - 10:45

right on point Hale that’s good and short , :D A.O.C LOL but remember A.O.C that they bring the most BS arguments to the table i don’t consider myself a leftist cause left-right politics is just statism playing and stripping on my lap ohh and that brings to my mind something you A.O.C must put Participatory Economics up you could put as an article there many videos whit Michael Albert lecturing his book is also good i recommend it for everyone
Menace - 19 02 09 - 15:07

I agree with informing the masses,but I’m also not. Giving people answers to questions may seem like pushy,I saw we ask them questions,and make them think and create their own questions,but if you can inform the masses without being pushy go ahead :)
[BlackBird] () - 19 02 09 - 16:14

Blackbird- that’s the exact problem with informing anybody of anything!!!
Boipuso () - 19 02 09 - 16:39

I hope they don’t decide to withhold the truth because they feel pushy.
I don’t care how they get it or how they deliver it, i want the truth.
Blak-Toothgrin - 19 02 09 - 16:56

Menace- is Michael Albert’s book called Moving Forward: Program for a Participatory Economy?
Boipuso () - 19 02 09 - 17:00

no its called PARECON : Life After Capitalism you can read it for free online at this link http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/..
Menace - 19 02 09 - 18:26

Thanks man
Boipuso () - 19 02 09 - 18:44

Menace-I will look into it.

To All – Getting back to the topic at hand, what will it take to eradicate the state, a physical confrontation or non-participation? Or we could pretend that the state doesn’t exist like ummichas, (just kidding, much love comrade).
A.O.C. - 19 02 09 - 22:38

they’ll just call us terrorist’s either way dude.

And A.O.C i still believe that at any time the american government can just throw out the laws so i doubt if non participation is going to work in the near future. And speaking of which throwing out laws, some big shot bank owner just got let off on all charges of stealing 8 BILLION dollars from his clients, clients that worked hard for the money that was stolen from them.
Blak-Toothgrin - 20 02 09 - 00:03

The problem is that those in power have been conditioning the populace to accept less and less liberties over the past few generations. So if and when they choose to enstate martial law there will be minimal resistance. The ability to educate the masses is our greatest tool. Even if we do not see a collapse of the state in our time, we could be passing the torch of anarchism into the right hands. Ideas and concepts have a greater life expectancy than any of us.
A.O.C. - 20 02 09 - 00:27

i co-sign whit A.O.C but as i already stated we need to be more organized in the UK the British Anarchist Federation is recognized as a legal entity we need this kind of organization everywhere these kind of organizations can keep alive our legacy and can pass to the others what we have learned it’s more easy to conserve these kind of ideas in such organizations and pass them to the next generation then make it some kind of folklore i will always stress on this even filthy ass Marxists are laughing at our lack of organization now days we need this
Menace - 20 02 09 - 06:26

Menace-I have no opinion on the matter, but alot of anarchist argue for the position of no platforms.
I have this concept in my mind that if anarchists were to get seriously organized, we should do so in cells. A government would have a harder time putting their thumb on us during a national crisis to where insurgents were being rounded up into fema camps, actually or anywhere else in the world.
A.O.C. - 20 02 09 - 09:41

well as i said a legal entity i understand the concern about centralization of political power but as you said we create cells we respect our nations laws and such and act like a legal and social entity it’s more easy to mobilize forces and spread the word in this way i mean we rarely participate in strikes and in working class struggles in my opinion we need to reclaim our stolen link whit the working class so we can become a greater entity in this time of social upheaval and class war to regain our trust within the working class will be a great boost for the worldwide anarchist movement
Menace - 20 02 09 - 10:33

Personally I feel the same way as many of you that education is an important factor involved in Anarchism.

My personal beliefs are simply, begin with education then lead to insurrection. If anarchists as a whole just start breaking things, blowing shit up and beating up the cops it’s only going to lead to negative views created by mass media. But it’s a difficult line to walk when thinking about when it’s time to protest and when it’s time to fight.

The riots in Greece are a perfect example of mixed feelings on insurrection. As a whole the riots brought the world’s attention to the anarchist cause. It helped to get many to at least think about the oppressive state which controls us. But on the other hand the media had it’s part in making the rioters seem like a bunch of looters and criminals.

Frankly I think geography has a large part to do with this as well. To be honest almost most attempts at insurrection in the US would be quickly thwarted and bashed by the media.

There are soo many aspects that need to be taken into account when in regards to either form of anarchism.
Soma909 - 20 02 09 - 12:29

touche, aoc. but, your comment exists only in a vacuum. outside of that vacuum, every force experiences an equal and opposite force. any action is met with an equal and opposite action. you push on the wall, the wall pushes back. though cute, the waves wash against the cliff, then cliff falls on the waves, and actually displaces the water. we could play with this one all day. by your reasoning, you will be always be in conflict. i get that. and that is fine. apathy (in the true sense – without suffering) not inaction, breeds the finest tyrant. tyrants are confirmed and rule by consent, whether there is ill will toward the proletariat, or not. the majority can never be just. anarchists will be a part of the communities that share their common interest, so they are therefore free. and this occurs whether anarchy reigns or not. as you can tell, as usual, i don’t wait for the potential anarchy of tomorrow. apathy has resulted from this ethnocentric uncivilization. simply, in order to satisfy the natural order of things, change you perception, that is all you can depend on. it’s the simplest form of non participation. evolution is a tinkering mechanism, not a force to be reckoned with – ie, it will happen with or without you. and it inevitably happens at the lowest energy expenditure. you just may not like how it happens – but that is too bad. so make it work for you. history will be cyclical until we follow the path of least resistance. the door is always there, whether or not we choose not to walk through it, because we always have feelings and needs that must be expressed/justified.

everyone else pretends that the state does exist, so i don’t see the problem with non participation, non acknowledgement. every great leader was an anarchist, and operated outside of the state. or played by it’s rules to manipulate it.

violence as self defense is justified – is an opinion that should be relegated to the annals of our animalistic past. back in tribal times, unfortunate. please correct me if i’m wrong, but the whole point of anarchy is to maintain our cerebral societal relationship with one another, and be individually free. if ‘majority rules’ is our determinig factor, then we truly are no different than our animal friends, and we should not be suprised by our predicament. animals capitalize on the weakness of their prey and their foodstuffs for survival, through violence and physical confrontation. i’ve never seen a lion and a gazelle hash their shit out on the savanna. as long as the gazelle is always aware of its surroundings, the lion is not a problem. the gazelle has protective mechanisms in place to ensure its survival, so obviously it is aware more often than not. if its young, sick or old on the other hand, then that awareness may be the compromised.

anyways, animals participate via physical confrontation. it seems to follow that our ‘superior conscious’ should lead to an effective method of self regulation. but clearly it does not. viva la majorite!! if you don’t take care of me, that is okay, you are taking care of most others!

aoc, acknowledgement creates the power struggle. that is the beginning.
[ummichas] - 20 02 09 - 13:02

man you individualist anarchists are a bunch of running mouths what to say you are capitalists undercover no?? LOL once again we are afraid if the majority rules like the boogie man we talk about being animals but we lack cooperation in the progress of the human race we rather let die millions of people from starvation then shake our “individuality” ohh yes and then we talk about animals :D don’t acknowledge the state but the state is still there whatever you acknowledge it or not anarchists have recognized that majority decision making, though not perfect, is the best way to reach decisions in a political system based on maximizing individual (and so social) freedom. Direct democracy in grassroots confederal assemblies and workers’ councils ensures that decision making is “horizontal” in nature (i.e. between equals) and not hierarchical (i.e. governmental, between order giver and order taker). In other words, it ensures liberty.
Menace - 20 02 09 - 13:50

Seriously ummichas, our minds operate in a similar manner but just on different wave lengths. Perception does not change physical reality. It is like the whole tree falling in the forest question. using the animal analogy, centralized government (lion) has a monopoly on the food stuffs/power (gazelle), anarchists (Hyenas) in mass numbers have the potential to usurp that power and distribute it back to the people. If the lion has the gazelle and the hyenas choose not to aknowledge that fact, the hyenas will go hungry. Having a good imagination will not put food in their stomachs and disbelieving in a governments power will not stop them from using it on us. An 8×8 cell is not a state of mind my friend, it is a reality.
A.O.C. - 20 02 09 - 14:14

and you are just the new age marxists. no, it is free market anarchy.. people should read up on the social contract. i know that a ‘market’ is as much a boogie man as majority rules. people starve because they reproduce and cannot sustain. and we support that by supporting them when they end up starving, which makes it worse because corporations capitalize on providing that support – halliburton. meanwhile people were ok before capitalism. everything in moderation, if not, moderation comes in due course. you guys can keep banging your heads against the wall with ‘direct’ this, and ‘majority’ that, ha! have fun with marxism, the proletariat and the direct democracy! it works until someone wants to think for themselves. and be free. it’s okay when everyone is making widgets, throwing potatos in the back of a truck. it ensures liberation because everyone has to conform. but i would say that liberty is a far stretch. it doesn’t work because someone has to take care of equals. people have to take care of themselves. forming a group to make decisions; you’re fine – but how many other people are going to be inwardly disenfrancised? majority is inherently flawed, and you the one that said ‘though not perfect’. that sounds like settling for substandard to me. which frustrates evolution. Direct grassroots results in collusion among the group to force a majority one way – grassroots democracy is subject to the same lobbying as the rest. people should be able to decide their own contractual arrangements within society. that way you are only responsible for whatever it is that satisfies you. you’re content, and others around you by default will be content. no workers unions, no direct whatever, council unions, aggregated assemblies, grass making democracies.
[ummichas] - 20 02 09 - 14:40

what about the old, sick and compromised? people expect to have the gov’t take care of all their problems. if you’re life produces problems, then who’s responsibility is it? everyone else’s i guess. thus systems evolve. technology will soon evolve to point where everything is so automated, that there won’t really be any work to do, then who are the capitalists going to rape if no one has any money to buy their shit anyways vis a vis unemployment? if we keep on trying to keep our jobs, and get paid the right amount per widget, and unions, that’s great for the capitalist. they capitalize on the controversy. if you’re willing to keep on working, they are willing to keep on making you pay
[ummichas] - 20 02 09 - 15:08

Means of production is power, and the lower class does not have access to means of production without taking out a loan with rediculous interest rates. The way capitalism is set up for the lower class is like starting the game of monopoly, mid game with $50 bucks and no property. It is bullshit and unbalanced. “people” cannot sustain and be self sufficent because of this reason. And when it is attempted you are subjected to the mafia mentality of the government taking their slice of the pie you baked and a refusal to comply will result in imprisonment by their thugs.

Hmmm, lol, joining the dark side?...I fear I cannot. I have read alot on Stirner and individualist anarchism is not for me. I worry about the well being of my fellow man to much to dive into those selfish and self serving views.
A.O.C. - 20 02 09 - 15:18

dark side of yin/yang is all i meant.

unbalanced is incorrect, (most ) people just don’t like to make an effort when they are at the bottom. this is just standard rhetoric for personal apathy. they lower class people are talking about are just so apathetic that they know someone will take care of them. why bother take out a loan.
[ummichas] - 20 02 09 - 15:25

new age Marxism ?? you even know what’s Marxism ?? if you are so quick to label in that manner i doubt you know when the individual is self managing both is life in the working place and at home the individual flourishes as i said up there when i talked about the majority rule that you ignored i said the evidence indicates that experience of a participatory authority structure might also be effective in diminishing tendencies towards non-democratic attitudes in the individual you seem to be too much into philosophy and whit your head in the clouds then whit your feet on the ground n individual or group of individuals feel that a specific decision threatens their freedom (which is the basic principle of political morality in an anarchist society) they can (and must) act to defend that freedom. “The political practice of participatory voting rests in a collective self-consciousness about the meaning and implication of citizenship. The members of the political association understand that to vote is simultaneously to commit oneself, to commit one’s fellow citizens, and also to commit oneself to them in a mutual undertaking . . . a refusal to vote on a particular occasion indicates that the refusers believe . . . [that] the proposal . . . infringes the principle of political morality on which the political association is based . . A refusal to vote [or the use of direct action] could be seen as an appeal to the ‘sense of justice’ of their fellow citizens As they no longer “consent” to the decisions made by their community they can appeal to the “sense of justice” of their fellow citizens by direct action and indicate that a given decision may have impacts which the majority were not aware. Hence direct action and dissent is a key aspect of an anarchist society and help ensure against the tyranny of the majority. Anarchism rejects the “love it or leave it” attitude that marks classical liberalism as well as Rousseau (this aspect of his work being inconsistent with its foundations in participation). the tyranny of the majority does not apply to a self-managed community and so a thus individual freedom and minority rights are essential to direct democracy/self-management.
Menace - 20 02 09 - 16:11

aoc i missed your other comment – go ahead and acknowledge your prison ;D
[ummichas] - 20 02 09 - 16:12

the sick and those whit problems are taken care of by the expense of their communities i see for an anarchist you fall for anarchist myths that’s hypocritical in my opinion “technological advance is seen as anti-anarchistic” many say and in another context you imply the same thing technology can allow us to “do more with less,” technological progress can improve standards of living for all people, and technologies can be used to increase personal freedom: medical technology, for instance, can free people from the scourges of pain, illness, and a “naturally” short life span; technology can be used to free labour from mundane chores associated with production; advanced communications technology can enhance our ability to freely associate. The list goes on and on. Therefore, most anarchists agree with Kropotkin when he pointed out that the “development of the industrial technique at last gives man the opportunity to free himself from slavish toil.” For example, increased productivity under capitalism usually leads to further exploitation and domination, displaced workers, economic crisis, etc. But it does not have to in an anarchist world. By way of example, consider a commune in which all resources are distributed equally amongst the members. Let us say that this commune has 5 people who desire to be bakers (or 5 people are needed to work the communal bakery) and, for the sake of argument, 20 hours of production per person, per week is spent on baking bread for the local commune. Now, what happens if the introduction of automation, as desired, planned and organised by the workers themselves, reduces the amount of labour required for bread production to 15 person-hours per week, including the labour cost spent in creating and maintaining the new machinery? Clearly, no one stands to lose — even if someone’s work is “displaced”, that person will continue to receive the same resource income as before — and they might even gain. This last is due to the fact that 5 person-hours have been freed up from the task of bread production, and those person-hours may now be used elsewhere or converted to leisure, either way increasing each person’s standard of living.

Obviously, this happy outcome derives not only from the technology used, but also (and critically) from its use in an equitable economic and social system. Certainly, a wide variety of outcomes would be possible under alternative social systems. Yet, we have managed to prove our point: in the end, there is no reason why the use of technology cannot be used to empower people and increase their freedom!
Menace - 20 02 09 - 16:16

Menace – i do not live under threat, nothing threatens my freedom. anarchy is a very busy subject for you, and very simple for me, ‘organization of society on a voluntary and cooperative basis without force or compulsion’. by definition then, anarchy will not sucessfully rise out of direct action and dissent. direct action and dissent breeds more of the same, and that taint follows anarchists like a bad smell, that’s why we are left wondering why nobody wants to be an anarchist? anarchy is not a protective or defensive mechanism. it is a way of life. it will arise without force or compulsion, because it represents neither.
[ummichas] - 20 02 09 - 16:30

that’s the problem anarchism arose from that as i already stated you are whit your head in the clouds to much and you ignore history you directly labeled me and you directly advocated an anarchist myth organization of society on a voluntary and cooperative basis without force or compulsion that’s the exact thing i said but i present socio-economic alternatives too you seem to present nothing but a over idealistic utopia you say nothing threatens your freedom yet you are an anarchist ?? and how do majority rule will threaten it ?? my man you need to lay off that philosophical anarchism and study some practical one many questions arise when you give that sort definition tough to admit it that definition you gave goes exact whit my ideology and there you present another myth nobody will force you to work voluntarism is part of my participatory economics that i advocate we seem to have much in common but i seem to be more practical in my explanation and you seem to be too philosophical
Menace - 20 02 09 - 16:44

the practical application of anarchy has shown its worth menace, over generations.
[ummichas] - 20 02 09 - 17:00

ohh yes i agree on the fullest extent anarchist societies never broke from the inside brutal force squashed them from the outside if you look into history all of them were squashed by brutal force and to be real anarchism never shown herself to her true extent deny it or not i hope human evolution will encompass this one day
Menace - 20 02 09 - 17:08

lol, Im going to change the title of the article to philosophical anarchism vs. practical anarchism.
A.O.C. - 20 02 09 - 17:10

simply, that is the def’n of anarchy, whether its worth admitting or not.

that’s what i keep saying, societal evolution is inevitable. the practical application of anarchy is useless, and should be relegated to the past with all of its failed attempts. social evolution will select for something more rational, rather than the typical archaic practical approach. the practical approach is good for tempering our minds to action, i will concede that, but that is it. but pragmatics seem always to go to far. as far as the chicken and the egg, philosophy wins. philosophy suggests the path that activists always malign, and only philosophy will save the maligned actions. not more actions. btw, this is my ‘practical’ approach. it works, head in the clouds or not. have fun on earth.

i would appreciate follow up, but i’m done till next we meet.

thx aoc
[ummichas] - 20 02 09 - 17:40

Civil unrest. Now.

http://tinyurl.com/c7h2g6
FlaresAndSlippers () - 20 02 09 - 17:41

failed attempts never were in the definition of failing an anarchist society never “failed” capitalism is failing , Marxism failed we didn’t fail we succeeded on a certain extent human evolution will decide the rest BUT if everyone goes all philosophical like you anarchism will be 100% Utopia we been called Utopians and we been CRITICIZED by everyone on our practical use of our theories if we don’t develop more on our explanations and if we don’t present the practicability of out theories then our theories will die in time. I rather die helping in my way the people then die in so called non-prison consciousness.
Menace - 20 02 09 - 18:04

thx also menace, good times
[ummichas] - 20 02 09 - 20:54

Thank you again ummichas for your views and always so eloquently put. till next time friend.

Menace-so back to the subject at hand, non participation or insurrection?
A.O.C. - 20 02 09 - 21:06

hey A.O.C there’s a link i want you to check out about the “obama deception” i just watched it and it sounds very very disturbing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od8bcCvX3..
Blak-Toothgrin - 21 02 09 - 02:16

either way things need to happen with anarchist. (instead of just talking alot on the web)
No offense to anyone here cuz im sure we all do our part.
I agree with most that it should be both. Informing the masses as much as possible, peacefully showing our non participation and vast amount of knowledge. Living by example. . . untill the opurtunity presents itself for a insurrection. Like pacicifist in waiting for a revolution. Pulling as much people into our side as possible.

Only when a mass majority of people understand what needs to be done and agree with an insurrection, will an insurrection than be possible. If the people arent ready then our petty little attemps at bringing any government down will only mark us as terrorrist pushing the people further away from anarchy.

(Im new to anarchy so help me out if im headed in the right direction!)
Jimi Ammo () - 21 02 09 - 07:24

Blak-Toothgrin Alex Jones is a paleoconservative nut after Noam Chomsky disagreed whit him on one issue he called Chomsky a New Word Order shit. LOL for me that’s bullshit. I mean conspiracy thinking is inefficient. Intelligent people analyze events intelligently. They look at the structure of things, examine the design of political, social and religious systems, and find the weak holes. If we fix the hole, or in some cases reform the whole system, the “outsiders” haven’t much to beg for. That is what Freemasons, wealthy capitalists and Zionists fear and that is where the ultimate solution to the problem lies.

A.O.C – i already stated I’m for both of them but we need someone to back us up we need to create a legal entity first your friend ummichas called me a new age Marxist but he seems to be lost in his dreams we need a connection whit the people just like we had in Spain and our glory days we are to much of an outside entity people see us from the outside we need to reconnect whit them hooligans like these kids breaking stuff calling themselves anarchists , hippie like anarchists that don’t do nothing for the people itself and don’t have the force to change something , and pseudo-intellectual anarchists that rabble all day about esoteric stuff. We need to Organize, Agitate, Organize educate the masses as you said regain their trust whit out their trust we are nothing. In these times of class war regaining the trust of the people must be essential.
Menace - 21 02 09 - 07:45

The last two posts on this page each brought up an important point that came up for me in reading most of this page. First, there has to be a practical side to what people are saying here. Even for an intellectual, the amount and degree of theory on here right now is frankly sickening. Perhaps it would be more productive to speak generally with anecdotes than to rail inane metaphors against each other. The other point, that Menace just made, I agree with whole-heartedly. There has to be a valid method for the anarchist to achieve their goals.

My experience with this (I will in no way claim it to be perfectly anarchist) has led me to believe that being well-read on things such as legal "rights" tends to work in your advantage while performing illegal activities. I’m sure many people here know what I mean. As far as the violence aspect of action goes, I would exercise extreme caution. Though I lean more towards pacifism, it is important that we spur movement in our own defense. It is very easy, however to bring about your own demise within a community if what you do is not carefully executed. That being said, I have seen the potential of the sort of underground aspect of a community to be quite advantaged versus local police.

And when it’s all over…I want to be able to know that I pushed my strength against their weakness while concealing my own. This is something that takes experience, education…yes, and awareness in the present moment.
[Vader] - 21 02 09 - 17:33

BRAVO vader! well said.
Jimi Ammo - 21 02 09 - 19:20

What a lot of people here are talking about is how to fight the government. But i still think the first move we should make is informing the mass majority of people. I think before we decide on anything else we should spread the word about anarchy and how the government is screwing everybody over.

We are just getting ahead of ourselves a little.

So i was thinking maybe someone can post an article here for everyone else to copy and hand out and and stick up on walls and stuff. What a great way to start, an army of informers!
Blak-Toothgrin - 21 02 09 - 19:22

That’s a brilliant idea Blak-Toothgrin!!!
it would be great because i am in high school and have been trying to spread the word. thing is… it is a christian high school. i know what your thinking… a christian anarchist? no. i am not christian and have never claimed to be one. i have come under flak for spreading anarchist ideas and for saying i am not a christian. an article to copy out and put all over the school would be brilliant!!!
Boipuso () - 21 02 09 - 21:22

Menace-I agree with you whole heartedly, and organizing is a must, creating networks is key.

Blktoothgrn-That is a great idea and if someone was inclined to email me a flyer that would promote anarchism as a viable alternative to the current system I would post it indefinitly.

Vader-well said my friend.
A.O.C. - 21 02 09 - 21:35

Boipuso wow a christian school, been there, they are kind of hard to persuade but be an extremist, talk to your friends about freedom and anarchy, back talk your teachers and write funny shit on your assignments.
Make everybody in your school know who you are.

and A.O.C i could try to make you one but there are alot of other people on this site that probably have some good ideas, like menace, ummichas, hale, AuthorityisSlavery. so instead of asking one person, maybe get people to write their opinions and send them to you.

just my opinion.
Blak-Toothgrin - 21 02 09 - 22:35

And stan if you can get in contact with him again. He would have a great view point on the us army.
and maybe we could find some good internet links to put up on the flyer.
Blak-Toothgrin - 21 02 09 - 22:50

the proposal goes out to all.
A.O.C. - 21 02 09 - 23:43

Blak-Toothgrin, good observation. I hope people do realize that being an anarchist, in essence, is not necessarily about opposing authority, so much as being free from it. It almost sounds like people have this thought of wishing for an ideal, and believing that if we can just get others to see the light we can reach that ideal. This is misguided, and unrealistic. Anarchy to me is very dear because it exposes the complex beauty in the very simple things. Being an anarchist has given me a sense of awe and purpose in life. It’s not something I’m going to wait to jump into when the government collapses.

So as an anarchist do I believe violence is justifiable? After all, I answer to no one unless they truly have my respect. This is not out of obligation, but free association…love. This is anarchy to me. I see no real place for aggression or intimidation. To me it’s contradictory. Why seek freedom from authority if you wish to pick up one of its default tools of oppression?

(The following is better to ignore unless you grasp it from your study and practice) Spiritually, I have no belief in the self. I am not my body. Anarchism springs from my conscience. It would be counterproductive to then act against my conscience and defend a self that is not real.
[Vader] - 22 02 09 - 00:23

good ideas are sparkling here but on the other hand i would propose something we must get involved in the labour movement create flyers about workers self-management and tips about union organizing and such we must create them and spread them around key areas where we know they are poor working conditions and low wages or at the factories and such. This could spark the interest of the common folk for anarchism and the alternatives anarchism offers the common folk.
Menace - 22 02 09 - 07:06

vader- interesting thought on ones self.

others- It seems pasting posters really irritates people. However, it gets noticed and isnt easily pulled off. I think all we have to do is really make the issues at hand relateable to our audience. . . other wise all they see is a bunch of young kids spouting off “conspiracy theories” and talking out of our assess. Although, if we make the poster/flyer/conversation relative to the person trying to be pursuaded. . .then they might understand how anarchy would work for them.
I have heard most people unfortunately think of anarchy as complete chaos. When i try talking to them about it they almost seem like they cant because they have to be “patriotic” because they live in america. To make it worst they oftem say something like, “well if it was a free for all then i could just be murdered or robbed with no government to protect me.” (its very frustrating to me)

but back to point. . . posters are great, flyers are nice, speeches and conversations awesome, but all our only effective if you can grab the persons attention and make the point relatable.
Ammo - 22 02 09 - 07:14

not to mention you only have about 90 seconds to make anyone interested in what you have to say.
Also artist out there! Start doing anarchist art. There just isnt enough of it.
Ammo - 22 02 09 - 07:16

good ideas Ammo but first anarchists need to organize in relative large numbers and form organizations and then set teams of people one team to help self management and create and help unions and get involved in the labour movement other team on the field whit flyers and posters and direct confrontation whit people and another team in particular schools and high schools organizing events and such but all depends on US and how we organize ourselves if we are not strong enough to organize ourselves and create an entity then our theories are useless and our actions in small packs are the same.
Menace - 22 02 09 - 08:09

that is after my own heart vader
[ummichas] - 22 02 09 - 14:57

Right on ummichas. I noticed you expressing similar sentiments earlier (as far as living anarchy). I’m grateful you grasp that. It’s good for your sanity.
[Vader] - 23 02 09 - 01:30

I agree with rising up physically if needed, but civil disobedience is the most effective and will almost always lead to violence. I agree with Menace in that people need to unite against the government because the damn politicans can’t do shit if people stop paying for taxes they don’t support. Civil disobediance, if kept in persistance, usually leads to making the government mad, and because of this people will have a better popular cause to fight against it. And if disobediance causes the government to get violent, you strike preemptiveley. The main line is that you ignore and act like the government does not exist until it gets violent, and then you strike.
Nikolai - 15 03 09 - 11:53

i understand that many of you may think that violence is the answer but Nikolai is right a peaceful demonstration is much more effective its piontless yo cause death and destruction if the overall goal is peace(no wars). i will leave you with one final thought MLK understood the need for civil disobedience and he gained great grounds where as Malcom X who used more violent acts was less succesful
~ ~ - 07 05 09 - 09:31

WTF
jack mccabe () - 25 06 09 - 17:30

Ok mabey education first once the numbers are in place,then revolt?
Idk in my oppinion violence seems couterproductive. It kinda goes against the overall message. Still middle ground is nessicary to unite us. We dont need to fight amongst ourselves. Mabey a meeting to resole this. We really need to.
Random person - 28 07 09 - 10:36

discount mbt shoes can be found at our web,mbt chapa caviar black and mbt chapa sneakers are goog choices. http://www.mbt-lami.com
mbt shoes () (URL) - 11 01 10 - 21:16

GHD straighteners enjoy good reputation, pink GHD is a hot style of GHD hair straightener.—- http://www.ghdhairirons.com
GHD () (URL) - 09 03 10 - 00:59