Anarchy

[cryosteel]

Anarchism is a political ideology that has become more and more popular these days. With the growing totalitarian methods of our current democratic societies, where people are being bugged, phone calls are being tapped and surf habits on the web are being documented (it's to "enhance" your "freedom," remember?), people today are getting very critical of any present authority. Children learn that leadership is Nazism and discrimination, and that they should be their own masters to lead the future liberal society into a new golden age of economical progression. Will they make it?

http://www.corrupt.org/articles/anarchy/

 

[speed]

Anarchism is a political ideology that has become more and more popular these days. With the growing totalitarian methods of our current democratic societies, where people are being bugged, phone calls are being tapped and surf habits on the web are being documented (it's to "enhance" your "freedom," remember?), people today are getting very critical of any present authority. Children learn that leadership is Nazism and discrimination, and that they should be their own masters to lead the future liberal society into a new golden age of economical progression. Will they make it?

http://www.corrupt.org/articles/anarchy/

Well anarchy was extremely popular with the European intellgenstia from the 1870's to the early 20th century; Bakunin, Proudhon, etc. COuntless acts of violence or terrorism were committed in the name of anarchy (albeit generally a very radical communist style of anarchism--no property, etc). And many of the ideas of 19th century anarchism were adopted by the Bolsheviks (who in actuality, were far closer to Bakunin in spirt--he was not a theorist--than Marx). But eventually the whole movement and its violent terrorism died out. Perhaps it even spurred the creation of Nazism/fascism and communism, just like terrorism and loony psychotic loner violence has spurred the creation of our current armed capitlist/fascistic police state, or timarchy as Infoterror calls it?

Today, I think sort of like this article sets out, that anarchism is a byproduct of advanced capitalism and postmodernism. If anarchism regains sort of a community spirit or set of common ideals of freedom, not just personal liberty and ego, then I think it has some real value. But if everyone is out to take out the system for their own personal reasons, we would have extreme societal meltdown.

However, I do think anarchism is noble in spirit if confined to preserving as much freedom, and fighting dogma and ideology for all humans as some anarchists like me, propose. Hehe.

And, if the world and human society is truly a totally chaotic place free from causality, then isnt Anarchism the best choice?

 

[Έρεβος]

I think of intelligent anarchism as a revolutionary philosophy that does not think of anarchy as a half-workable endpoint, but rather a purging of the huge modern constructs of false authority. I agree with this philosophy, seeing that the only way to break free of the modern prison is revolution: a complete deconstruction so that society may rebuild itself from an uncorrupted starting level.

Stupid Anarchism is extreme liberalism, thinking complete and total freedom is what is most important - believing in the same fictional "equality" that social liberalism does. Not that it matters, as anyone that follows this sort of anarchism is working towards the same thing as any intelligent anarchist, just ignorantly. When humanity enters a state of anarchy it is absolutely certain that some authority will rise, as humans are FAR from equal. So, anarchists are striving for some stupid impossible dream, while really working towards something positive. I see no problem there, unless it tries to create some sort of anarchic "government" that, with authority, ensures freedom from authority; then it is absolutely hypocritical, completely unworkable, and just as destructive as any modern government - basically communism.

The government is best which governs least.

 

[Seditious]

anarchy is just election year for the next ruling tyranny.

 

[Έρεβος]

anarchy is just election year for the next ruling tyranny.

In human history I see a lot more time without tyranny than with. Only the past 2000 years have been fraught with it.

 

[Seditious]

In human history I see a lot more time without tyranny than with. Only the past 2000 years have been fraught with it.

One man's good Christian values government is another man's witch-drowning tyranny.

 

[Έρεβος]

One man's good Christian values government is another man's witch-drowning tyranny.

The first man is an idiot.

 

[MetalBooger]

In human history I see a lot more time without tyranny than
with. Only the past 2000 years have been fraught with it.

How so?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Highly organised societies without leaders
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070611154001.htm

Though the bee colony is centered around the queen and her reproductive capabilities, findings by Schneider and others indicates that she does not exactly "rule." Instead, the colony appears to be controlled by the anonymous consensus of the colony's workers.

Though it is of great interest to researchers studying social behavior, a great mystery still remains regarding how bee societies effectively direct and coordinate complex operations without a central controlling intelligence. Pierce's finding is part of an ongoing research effort in Schneider's lab aimed at understanding the mechanisms of leaderless societal management

Beyond agriculture, the finding may also have key implications for understanding the dynamics of all social animals, including man.

 

[Seditious]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070611154001.htm
Though the bee colony is centered around the queen and her reproductive capabilities, findings by Schneider and others indicates that she does not exactly "rule."

Is that helpful? I'm not seeing the relevance. Of course it's possible for a happy little man, or a quaint family to live as equals to some degree, for monks to cooperate not led by any other but a common goal... but the point is that anarchy is fucked once someone comes along to rule them, not that people could exist without rule. Zebra's don't seem to have a leader either, but their delightful anarchy is fucked by the law of the lioness at its whim---their anarchy is nothing more than the rather liberal tyranny of the lion

 

[Norsemaiden]

That's right. But tyranny doesn't have to be inevitable. Even when the Leadership Principle is applied, that leader need not be tyrannical in the sense that if he is one of a tribe and truly dedicated to the interests of that tribe, and not his own selfish and conflicting interests, then the people should not feel oppressed or exploited in the slightest. The trouble arises when the leader is not of the people either in terms of class or ethnicity.

But, back to anarchy, yes all it takes is some outsider with greater force to come in and ruin everything. This is why it may be necessary (unless the anarchic society has unrivalled force of their own to defend themselves) that all outside threats be entirely eliminated first.

Should this be achieved, and should the population be so far above the mentality of present-day humanity that they have the minds of Nietzsche's Overman, then anarchy will be the only dignified way to exist. Some kind of organisation, which may involve the leadership principle, would likely exist, but I still think of this as anarchy. Children need to obey their parents in any society, but this is purely practical and not an expression of overbearing force. The parents are serving the children after all.

 

[Seditious]

then the people should not feel oppressed or exploited in the slightest. The trouble arises when the leader is not of the people either in terms of class or ethnicity.

I was with you up until "or ethnicity", I always take it for its racial connotations. Do you just mean 'background, allegiance, or association' (-dictionary.com) in the way that the hick christian ethnicity of Bush is rather disagreeable to, the aah, thinking people over whom he rules?

The parents are serving the children after all.

Some parents really make me doubt that---make me think children are given rights and there are child services to liberate children from bad parents for a reason... because we can't just assume that is true of all, and give them free reign and full right.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I was with you up until "or ethnicity", I always take it for its racial connotations. Do you just mean 'background, allegiance, or association' (-dictionary.com) in the way that the hick christian ethnicity of Bush is rather disagreeable to, the aah, thinking people over whom he rules?


Some parents really make me doubt that---make me think children are given rights and there are child services to liberate children from bad parents for a reason... because we can't just assume that is true of all, and give them free reign and full right.

Did you know that the origin of the word "King" comes from "kin"? The king had to be of the same stock as the people he ruled over.

 

[Seditious]

Did you know that the origin of the word "King" comes from "kin"? The king had to be of the same stock as the people he ruled over.

Nope. makes me wonder where the concept of the 'divine right of kings' came from (I guess by the time people knew the word king they'd forgotten where it came from eh)

 

[Seditious]

Did you know that the origin of the word "King" comes from "kin"? The king had to be of the same stock as the people he ruled over.

Nope. makes me wonder where the concept of the 'divine right of kings' came from (I guess by the time people knew the word king they'd forgotten where it came from eh)

 

[Norsemaiden]

Nope. makes me wonder where the concept of the 'divine right of kings' came from (I guess by the time people knew the word king they'd forgotten where it came from eh)

In Old English, the word for "king" was 'cynning' - 'man of the kindred'. The earliest kings traced their ancestry to Woden. With the conversion to Christianity they extended this genealogy back through Noah and Adam to God himself. They were meant to be providers, protectors and shepherds of their people. And they were to be leaders in war.

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Thread/258922

In Norse the word for king was "konungr" which also meant kindred.

kin, kind, kindness are all related (no pun intended) words.

When we say someone is "kind" the meaning was supposed to be that they behaved in a kin-like manner.

That reminds me "fair" refers to behaving in a White way a similar term being "candid" which means truthful but also refers to being White.

These terms demonstrate the human instinct to view one own "kind" as being most trustworthy.

 

[Seditious]

When we say someone is "kind" the meaning was supposed to be that they behaved in a kin-like manner.

That reminds me "fair" refers to behaving in a White way a similar term being "candid" which means truthful but also refers to being White.

That's probably the most interesting thing I've learnt all day.

 

[cryosteel]

Today, I think sort of like this article sets out, that anarchism is a byproduct of advanced capitalism and postmodernism.

But if everyone is out to take out the system for their own personal reasons, we would have extreme societal meltdown.

Yes, like this popular culture song:

Anarchy for the U.S.A
It's coming sometime it maybe.
I give a wrong time, stop a traffic light.
Your future dream is a shopping spree.

Cause I want to be Anarchy, in the city.