Amigo wrote: "Anarchism, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government."
-1957 Emma Goldman
I've always had a great deal of respect for Emma Goldman, but discovering that she delivered this quotation in 1957, seventeen years after her death, certainly raised her another notch in my estimation.
"This quote was sent by 'Strider1957' " and "written by Emma Goldmann 1917" - two similar numbers are a bit confusing sometimes . Especially when names are all hollow words. :wink:
Ah, thanks for clearing that up, Walter. I will no longer look forward to Red Emma's future pronouncements from beyond the grave.
joefromchicago wrote: I will no longer look forward to Red Emma's future pronouncements from beyond the grave.
And I'd thaught that would be great watching you, listening to her ... late at night in eg. 39, 40 days :wink:
A poem for my fellow anarchists, since I know there are quite a few here among the thick shrub of statists.
An Enemy of the State
"Anarchism, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government."
ok I'm in.
I'm not an enemy of all states. I'll wing it and differ from many in that I think governments have uses that are occasionally for the welfare of all. I've been licensed re health and welfare in two professions and have been for that license existing both times.
The thing is, I think most modern democracies build in some intricacy to alleviate mob-rule, or piazza-rule. Certainly the US is well garbed, or thought it was. Groups/Mobs slide in sideways...
Representative government depends on real representation. If everybody was actually paying attention, things would get chaotic fast... there is a certain dependence on sleepiness in the populace.
My deepest wish is that there would be a combination of wakeup and cogent argumentation in an ongoing way within a government structure.
I don't suppose I'm an anarchist, by oldline definitions rep'd by some posters, or philosophic ones, by others, though Steve's summary makes sense. I'll put myself into the anarchist adjacent packet.
Guess I have to add that I am not entirely against piazza rule...
just a bit chary.. re reaction and ab-reaction.
People collectively considering the "pros" of anarchism are separately harboring the "cons" of the government there living under.
All governments are a monopoly of force to the degree that they tax and confiscate the property of their citizens. The citizens in themselves cannot object because of the threat of force. Anything that must exist because of violence and force, such as the State, is unethical.
Anonymouse wrote:All governments are a monopoly of force to the degree that they tax and confiscate the property of their citizens. The citizens in themselves cannot object because of the threat of force. Anything that must exist because of violence and force, such as the State, is unethical.
On the other hand, there will be violent people out there under any political system, and many of them will use violence to their benefit, just as government does. Given that, what would you rather have: a competitive, thriving violence industry, or a system where big-scale violence is monopolized by a "sedentary bandit" (Mancur Olson)? Incidentally, the "sedentary bandid" argument is the major argument why I'm a small-government libertarian, not an anarchist.
BBB
Trying to identify someone or their political party affiliation is no longer rational today.
What we realy have in the U.S. today in our two party system are not Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative. What we have is a Conservative Party (Democrat) and a Tory Party (Republican.)
BBB
Anarchism is at best, a self-serving construct, and at worst, an intellectual fraud.
Self-styled Anarchists will tell you that anarchy is not chaos and that a desire for anarchy is not nihilistic.
Instead they will tell you that it is a state of society where there is neither institutional nor naturally occurring external (of the individual) control. A society of self-governance which they, delusionally, believe will produce a utopian society.
Aside from the fact that most self-styled Anarchists actually argue for a society governed by their particular school of thought, the societal state the purists argue for is a ridiculous fantasy. Humanity, for all it's time on earth, has never, even in small and isolated pockets, conformed to the pipe dreams of Anarchists. For certain, it has lived in the fields of chaos, but that, as Anarchists will insist, is not Anarchy.
Notwithstanding that the vast majority of self-styled Anarchists are not, no matter how we define the term, actually anarchists, virtually none have promoted Anarchism as they define it.
There is a reason we all think of mad bomb throwers when we hear the term Anarchist.
Throughout their history, Anarchists have engaged in a strategy of destruction.
It is insane to belive that the destruction of current society will naturally lead to the sort of self-deterministic, individualistic society for which Anarchists long. At the very best, it will lead to a societal clean slate upon which Anarchists can write the new rules --- hardly in keeping with the essence of Anarchy.
Anarchists fall into three dubious categories:
1) Pretentious twits who find laying claim to Anarchy to be cool (The vast majority of self-styled Anarchists).
2) Delusional fools who long for a reality that can never be (The tiniest minority of Anarchists).
3) Nihilistic madmen who have found an intellectual masque for their insane lust for destruction.
If you claim to be an Anarchist, you are one of the above.
You are not an intellectual hero.
Spare us your shite, delusions, or evil.
All of the Anarchists on this thread fall into category #1.
Just found this and haven't read through, but it sounds good to me, Dys :-)
Where are the replies of self styled Anarchists?
Oh yes, Anrachists, by their very nature, need not reply.
What a great game to play.
OK Finn,
I will make a partial, and future idealized counter, by suggesting that if the world's population was sparse enough, and the technological level was self-sustainingly high enough, that a quantifiable and sizable reduction in overall government could be achieved without it being a net negative.
Chumly wrote:OK Finn,
I will make a partial, and future idealized counter, by suggesting that if the world's population was sparse enough, and the technological level was self-sustainingly high enough, that a quantifiable and sizable reduction in overall government could be achieved without it being a net negative.
But that is not anarchy, is it?
No, of course it is not.
As to your conjecture that technology will, inevitably, expand, this is almost a given, but it is entirely unreasonable to expect the world's population to shrink.
Is anarchy, then, a movement to reduce, by whatever means, the earth's human population?
