So You Want Anarchy? Be Careful What You Wish For.

I know that what I'm going to be talking about belongs in the Social Issues and Civil Unrest catagory but however I'm unable to post it there due to me being a n00b on this site. Anyways, what I want to discuss is Anarachists, the Black Block movement and really any other groups holding similar views. It would be nice for some input for supporters of any such movements to enlighten myself on a few things about the groups with those types of views and what I view as groundless goals.

I'd like to firstly say that I am not for the oppressive and corporatized systems that we live in today and that I am fully aware and just as outraged as any Anarchist or Block Block member. I know and understand what's fuelling the anger to partake in such activites such as damaging corporate property or showing your anger else where in other stupid forms. But let's think for a second.. that's as far as it goes.

Now it's my personal opinion and I may be wrong about some people in such groups. But it's my opinion that most of the people in those groups have no clue what they're fighting for or what they're really up against. Now let me put it this way, the economies slipping, the next generations future isn't secure or even all that bright for that fact due to our nations monetary situations which we as a common citizen really had no control over. Yourself, your neighbours, your family, your friends, pretty much everybody you know has a right to be angry as all hell. However I see things not quite from your perspective and I am just as mad. What goals are you setting out to accomplish.. if any? What kind of structure would you have if the system fell in your favour of complete "anarchy", more importantly how would your childeren, the future of our existence deal with such a flawed system that's even worse than the one we're already in? If you really think about it, having a government fall and having complete anarchy replace it.. well that's not really better than the oppressive people that you're going against.

Another thing I need some understanding on is why all the petty crime, why the smashed windows, the graffitti, attacking other activists or even journalists or just random people taking your picture? I understand the defense of "we're committing crimes and we don't want to be caught" however, for one to state that then one isn't a true anarchist, am I not correct? A true anarchist wouldn't care about covering his or her face, they only cares about their cause and carrying out his or her goals. Let me put it this way, instead of anarchists in areas that are less democratic than ours (and even in our own democratic system in the most extreme circumstance of home grown extremeists) we call them terrorists. If you really think about it, terrorists and anarchists are almost one in the same, however one is more extreme than the other. They both have the same cause, to disrupt the already established governments structure for the fact that they do not agree with the current governement that is running the already established structure. Now as I was saying, one just simply gets stuff done where as the other is more or less a group of confused people with no real agenda. Anarchists, Block Block members, so on so forth also really heavily on the fact that they like to remain anonymous while protesting for their views and wants while at the same time disrupting the peaceful views and protests of others by causing chaos and bringing a negative aspect towards groups speaking out that have real things to be speaking out about? There's nothing that has been done on the by or on the behalf that has made any positive move forward for your organizations, I think that's a totally fair statement to make. Also hiding behind a mask, isn't exactly going all out for your 'cause and it allows your group to be infiltrated. They're are people that are actually willing to put their life on the line when they feel that they are oppressed, hiding their face and causing damage to property is the least of their worries. I just feel that such groups are more or less irrelevant, especially when they're causing more damage than good.

Now I don't mean to be bashing anybody with those views, but I've seen these people in action before. It's also really sad that in todays day and age, while at a protest that you'd have to worry about getting dragged away from the crowd while everybody just watches and does nothing until the next person gets dragged away. People that are anti-establishment and anti-authourity are the last people that I think would watch their fellow brother or sister in arms get dragged away like that. Which just furthers my view that most of you kids (and adults too!) think that those are lifestyle choices that you can just stop, take your "work" clothes off and go back to your family living the very life and establishment and STILL living off of the same structure you're fighting.

So it's either I'm deeply misunderstood about such groups or I'm right in asking that such views of the groups are no better than the ones the groups themselves oppose?

reply to post by Subbam


There is a big difference between fighting for personal rights and freedom and fighting (unwittingly or not) for someone else's agenda. Many of these people are arguing for a vague idea of something they can't even describe themselves. Disgruntled and ornery blaming everyone but those responsible. We are a class system and we will always be either on the top the middle or the bottom. Things are deliberately arranged so that is where you stay. If there is a revolt it will be as always with the poor and then they will be thrown some crumbs and an apparent victory but quickly things go back to the way they were. Rich get richer and poor get poorer.

reply to post by Subbam


I asked a similiar question here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was a very enlightening conversation.

I think that the MSM may very well be confusing angry young people wanting everything their way and carrying Anarchist symbology as actual Anarchists.

My mind is not yet made up on this though. Just like any movement, the Anarchist movement has evolved into something else entirely from it's origins.

reply to post by newcovenant


I agree with you on everything except that every revolt will always be with the poor. Alot of the self proclaimed "anarchists" aren't poor at all, in fact, most of them are middle-class young adults if that. Now you're right on the fact that the people with a lesser economic status are happy once a minor change occurs and you're also right about the fact that those changes are shortly lived. However, you look at the current state of where this anger's coming from and it's coming from the youth (which they every right to be angry mind you) however that anger's misplaced towards things they do not fully understand. Now with the Middle Class being dragged into economic problems and most Middle Class Families are on the tipping point of just getting by and full out monetary loss, there's no longer just the people with lesser rights and lesser monetary wages revolting, it's now your workforce. Once that middle lines crossed where the Middle Class can't really distinguish with what they used to have and how they now have to live, well then you have a major division socially. For once that happens, It's the people that have vs. the people that don't have or be it commoners rising up against the Elites or what have you. For once a revolt occurs with the Middle Class involved, that is the end of what they see as the oppressive regime.

reply to post by Subbam


It is true and I think this tipping point is what people are waiting for. Think it is about a decade away.
We are poor if we need to work 40 plus hours a day, 50 weeks a year and still worry how you will survive. It is a misnomer to call these folks the middle class. They are poor and desperate as well. If you don't count starving, disease and death the poor have it a little better than our middle class. Our most desperate are typically unemployed, at least that stress is off their shoulders.
This is why I find there is so little sympathy for the most poor by half of society these days when it was once considered altruistic and a human kindness to help them. Charity is out. It is because if you are not poor you are working, paying for them and you can barely afford food and a house yourself. Vacation?? You are just trying to get to tomorrow.


We have our merchant class which is all corporate money. They are a little better off. It is a bad idea to dislike the corporate world altogether on principal and so I think people must weed out the few honorable ethical and decent companies who offer real value for the consumers hard earned cash. We should recognize the simple drug pushers and snake oil scammers. Patronize co.'s that have a history of treating their workforce well, not just minimally but WELL and keeping the workforce local and not using cheap labor and other countries lax human rights laws to their advantage. All this is blood money. Products made from slavery of a kind.

Then there is the ruling class. The Aristocracy, and the Titled. The entitled.
For all practical purposes this handful of leaders and nobility
are our OWNERS.
They own the world and have from the earliest beginnings we can remember.
Elites. Old Money. Families of obscene wealth and privilege.

Even the merchants tend to them and do their bidding.
As well as Nations, Presidents, Countries and The Church.
All the rest are pawns and property in a big old board game to the ruling classes who have a very clear differentiation.
We are even less than that unfortunately. We are chum.

They throw the merchants bits of us, (middle and lower classes, anybody with a paycheck) as scraps, crumbs and the merchants rush for the pieces of our "market share" like hungry dogs eating from the masters hand.
They are their masters and owners as well as ours. We are pretty far down the ladder though. We are in the pool.

Though we are in a small way each responsible for our future much of that is figured from the moment you are born. Elites rule over us and determine the limitations of our fate because playing odds you can guess and steer results of this game called life.
Think about the people who MAKE IT. We consider them so lucky, because they are so few and far between. Success stories We play lotteries and hope for that kind of success ourselves.
Are we all so stupid only a few of us MAKE IT?

The remainder struggle living those "lives of silent desperation."

I think the elites are the Bilderburgs, not exactly them, but they are represented at those meetings deciding the fate of the world, what wars, what money, transport, houses, our food supplies, energy sources, space programs much of the "products and items for sale" to the mass public, and social decisions like television, laws and trends like the lottery and the stock market.
These meetings and many others we don't know about is how the manipulation and fixing is planned and coordinated. We are all players in a game of survival. Some of us win, some lose but make no mistake about it there are spectators and those who are there to just WATCH.


All the people in the world are players in a theater for THEIR entertainment.

Oh look daddy, a war. How amusing.


en.wikipedia.org...

A proscenium theatre layout also simplifies the hiding and obscuring of objects from the audience's view (sets, performers not currently performing, and theatre technology). Anything that is not meant to be seen is simply placed outside the "window" created by the proscenium arch, either in the wings or in the flyspace above the stage.

reply to post by Subbam



Hi Subbam, and welcome to the Introductions Forum, a place to say hello to the ATS community. For now you can reply to any thread in any member forum you wish, as well as send & receive (PM's) Private Messages to Staff only for now. Once you have achieved 20 posts, you will then be able to start your own threads and additionally send & receive messages to and from fellow ATS members.

Some handy links, links and more links.

Index of Important ATS Related Threads

Start Here - ATS Freshmans Forum

Hey new members!! Come here if you need advice

Starting a New Thread ?... Look Here First

Terms & Conditions Of Use (Please read)

Rules for Avatars and Mini-Profile Background images

Signature Guidelines




Take your time and enjoy. If you have any questions just ask.

Sauron,
Super-Moderator.

Hello,

I an my friends have some Anarchist beliefs that I would like to input into the conversation. While I see your point in how you view the current Anarchist movement ( and I agree with ALOT of what you say ) this is how we believe TRUE Anarchist beliefs are.

#1. True Anarchist's do not want to see violence and destruction, nor do we want all out anarchy running rampant. In all societies be it big , small , long lasting or short lived there must be some form of rules and laws. To not have any kind of justice system or laws would not only decrease the standards for living for society as a whole but it would also directly impact peoples lives in the fact that people would also be fearful of rampant thefts , killings so on and so forth.

There MUST be some form of government for even an Anarchist run world.

#2. I believe ( in my anarchist views) that the government should every so often be torn down and rebuilt with people from the current generation and time frame, so lets say every 20 to 30 years the government gets a completely fresh start. Currently the Government of our great nation is doing justice for no one but themselves. We have Laws , programs, and bills in effect that should not be even a part of today's society.

The reason for this is because the Government has not kept up with society, It is still ran by the same people, laws, and etc that have been in effect for the last x amount of time. As an example, in California my homestate. A law passed in 1975 Puts a cap on how much a person can recieve in a settlement from a malpractice suit against a doctor at $250,000 dollars.

In my city there is a doctor that had a man in his care for 5 days. On the 5th day the doctor released the man, 1 hour before the man was to leave the hospital he died. The autopsy showed that the man Had 1 gallon of fluid in his lungs and died because the doctor didn;t properly care for him.

The woman sued and recieved nearly 6.7 million dollars for lost wages pain and suffering etc. Due to the cap she can only collect up to $250k for pain and suffering. California enacted this law in 1975 so the insurance companies would not charge the high premiums associated with said insurance and would keep doctors in California.

In my eye's this is unacceptable, The doctor clearly showed signs of neglect towards his patient and causes much damge to this woman, her husband, their family and their way of life and she will not recieve fair compensation because the state doesn't want doctors to pay high premiums. I believe the doctor should have lost his license as soon as the court case was finished but no rule exists for THAT issue only laws that protect the negligent doctor and his and is insurance companies wallets.

I'm not going off topic and appologize if I seemed to be but I do have a point I am trying to make.

My point is that if the Government was torn down and rebuilt every so often with people and laws from the current time frame and if laws and bills were reviewed every so many years to see if they are still fair and just and still fit in the current time the government would be a much more respected and useful tool for the CITIZENS of this country to have to aid in running this country.

As it is now, the people in office are well above the age to be useful in running our time frames country. we need more 30, 40 and 50 year olds in office and less 55+ in office. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the reelected Strom Thruman? for his final term just because he was in congress so long, never mind the fact that he was to old to do his job at 80+ years old. He wasn't born during our timeframe therefore should not have been running our government.

I believe every position in the government should have a time frame. The President can be elected only 2 times for a total of 8 years as such. I believe that EVERY position of government from your local mayor to congress to any and all members of government should have the same term limits. This would keep things fresh and more in tune with a true anarchist state.

#3. The Government should NEVER have more power then the people.
The Government should be a CITIZEN ran entity and NOT and entity that is running the CITIZENS. At the start of our nation we went to war as a united group of people who were against the oppression and corrupt ruling of England and the British. We fought for our freedom to rule ourselves how we saw fit so that all American citizens then and now could live our lives in the pursuit of happiness freedom justice life and liberty. We somehow lost sight of what we as individuals can do when we are united as one and decided to pay back our forefathers by handing over OUR country and our RIGHTS to the government.

We are no longer a country ran by us for us we are a country that is ran by them for them. It is a sad and pitiful day when I wake up and see my daughter and realize that because of the corrupt thinking and out of control spending of our government that she will most likely NEVER be able to experince things that she should be able to as a free citizen of the united states.

We as a country of bright minded strong willed citizens somewhere and someway decided to relinquish our right to freedom and the god given right to live to become government controlled media ran sheeple. We ( including myself at times ) just eat whatever we are spoonfed by the government and we accept that there are things that we can't change ( not that we cant but in all honesty we have given up the will and the desire to fight to change )
for a life of Government controlled mediocrecy.

The Government needs to be ran by the Citizens of this country and not the other way around. We have given to much power to the Government ( a big anarchist no no) and now because of it we have lost more and more of or freedoms and rights and will continuie to do so until there is american revolution type change.

We as a unified and united country of brothers and sisters,friends and family,nieghbors and individuals should not allow eachother to lose our freedoms.

I am disgusted each day by the fact that My nieces and nephews cannot even say the pledge of allegiance in school due to the fact that it says " one nation under god " it is literally about 3 sentences long now and it is plain and simply not right.

I believe everyone should have the right to there beliefs but I do not believe for one minute that I should lose the right to mine just so you can have yours. Yet that is whats happening everyday, someone complains it says god here or there i dont like it i will sue you and get it removed. ok thats your right to not like it but now its removed and i liked it so now you just screwed me for your own selfish gain.

It's unfair and unjsut and should not be stood for yet we have allowed it and allow it more and more each day. In a true anarchist state it would not be this way.


My Daughter is calling for me so as much as i would like to write more I must stop for now. I hope this gives you a slight insight into my views as an anarchist ( granted I am not affiliated with a Party nor am i an extremist)

I would be willing to discuss more if anyone is interested, also I am sorry if I rambled or didnt always make sense if you read my intro page you will see I appoligized in advance for it.

Peace to all,
Matt

reply to post by XJMatt


First off, thanks for your reply XJMatt.

So then we both aggree that there has to be some form of order to provide an equal standard of living among the citizens of any society, even in an Anarchist society. However, the definition of an Anarachist is somebody who promotes a state of complete lawlessness and disorder. An Anarchist disregards all laws of man laid upon him or herself from any authoritive figure, which does in the end lead to a state of Anarchy. So if there is structure and stability in an Anarchist society, then you're not an Anarchists.

I agree in a sense with the plan to "tear down" the government every 30 years. However, this in the end would end up as the downfall of such a society. It's been proven time after time that power, be it centralized or not does not like to leave once it gets settled. So there for, you'd have the socitey rebel against the power that they've installed, thus repeating and endless cycle. But I do agree completely with the fact that anybody one person or a number of people in control has to be up to date with the current generations wants and needs, that would work completely fine.

Now I feel deeply for that womans loss of her husband, but however what she settled for was her choice and it was monetary compensation. Now don't get me wrong. The government is just as wrong for allowing that doctor to operate with his state issued license and for even making a cap in the first place. However, the same amount of blame should be equally shared with the people supporting such a structure, including the woman who lost her husband. Now I say that because she chose to simply settle and no longer persue a more suitable punishment, so therefore she's a part of that failure in the system. I mean, if you think about if there's no foundation, then there's no structure in place and in this case the foundation is the people in the community and the state. Which is why I under stand that everybody's upset, yet nobody does anything effective to make the structure pay attention to the needs of the foundations which supports and allows the structure to exist. So once you realize that So once you fully understand what that means, then in all reality, the government has never ever been more powerful than the people, it's the people that ALLOW such a power to get to where it is in the first place. Now I see why your upset with the fact that they won't allow your daughter to say "one nation under god" at school, however it's the first two words that people don't really realize what that ment when they were cut. It's a simple statement. The United States is no longer "One Nation", it now serves the best interests of the world as a whole which doesn't give you the rights of an individual nations. I can back up such claims with recent issues as military involvement across the globe in the interests of other countries and with no interest in regard to the common American citizen. There can be a whole discussion made on that topic alone.

So in conclusion, why hold the name of an Anarchist if that's not what you really are. Most Anarachists are in reality people that are wanting change but does not know how to change such a system that has effected them negatively over time. Now I understand the resentment of the people in such groups more than the average person. However, for one to say that they're an Anarchist but for one to still want a stable structure, then you're truly not what you define yourself out to be. Which I believe that truly shows just how lost some people really are. I do not mean that in a negative way in the least. It's not the fault of anybody in a group like that. However, I believe they just need to come up with a new group with better direction, clearer goals and leadership. Stand firm, stand strong, stand proud and come to a common belief system shared by the organization as a whole. Because all in all, your movements doomed already based on the name alone, it's a shattered structure itself that is not clearly understood by it's participants.

reply to post by Subbam


Let me start by saying I think those who choose to use the term anarchist do actually see it as chaos, they prove it in their actions, since they don't want no government, they just want their brand of government.

I would venture to say, about 80% of my friends are anarchists, however, because of this idea that the media has created and "kids" who for some reason feel oppressed have come to embrace the term, refuse to call themselves anarchist any more. And I understand why, the stereotype has landed the anarchist on the list of domestic terrorists at least here in the US.

Now I understand the idea that wikipedia is unreliable as a source for the most part, I agree on some points as personal ideas may cloud those who hold control what may and may not be posted. However. more often then not, wiki does provide valid ideas.

Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2]

since the very nature of the state is violence anarchy s the only solution.

Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations,[3]

This means nothing more the you have no right to interfere with my life as long as I don't interfere in yours

but widely disagree on what additional criteria are essential to anarchism. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."[4]

If we can agree that I have no right to force my way into your life and you admit you have no right to do as well, just about anything is possible.

"In broad terms, anarchism is the rejection of coercion and domination in all forms, including that of the priests and the plutocrats.... The anarchist...abominates all forms of authoritarianism, and he is the enemy of parasitism, exploitation, and oppression. The anarchist frees himself from all that is sacred and carries out a vast program of desecration."[5]

Now if I am going to want to live free, then I have to allow others to be free. but if you engage me in debate over the need for government, then I am first going to point out the gun in the room.

Anarchism

One of the most difficult – and essential – challenges faced by libertarians is the constant need to point out “the gun in the room.” In political debates, it can be very hard to cut through the endless windy abstractions that are used to cover up the basic fact that the government uses guns to force people to do what they do not want to do, or prevent them from doing what they do want to do. Listening to non-libertarians, I often wish I had a “euphemism umbrella” to ward off the continual oily drizzle of words and phrases designed to obscure the simple reality of state violence. We hear nonstop nonsense about the “social good,” the “redistribution of income,” the “education of children” and so on – endless attempts to bury the naked barrel of the state in a mountain of syrupy metaphors.

Free domain Radio
I'll leave you to ponder this as I head to bed, i'll be back later.

reply to post by NuroSlam


How you defined everything as far as views and the meanings, well that's how the way things should be, I can completely agree with that. However, like I said earlier, to the average person, the concept of a true Anarchist and their set of beliefs is over shadowed by the former shell of it's true cause. What the average person equates with Anarchy today and the movement is just what I had stated as far as a state of complete lawness. I'm no Public Relations Officer, however, the name of Anarchists and for how you "True Anarchists" have allowed to have your movement highjacked, is it not now best to come back together at the table and really start to think and to really tear down the structure and start clean within the Anarchist movement itself?. Because if what you say is true as far as not all Anarchists as a movement are coming together with the same common goals, be it the difference of opinions of the movement and what it represents along with the no so good public image be it because of fringe members with a completely seperate point of views but yet still under the same name that represents everybody in that group.. it still damns the movement and everything it represents in the end.

Originally posted by Subbam
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Because if what you say is true as far as not all Anarchists as a movement are coming together with the same common goals, be it the difference of opinions of the movement and what it represents along with the no so good public image be it because of fringe members with a completely seperate point of views but yet still under the same name that represents everybody in that group.. it still damns the movement and everything it represents in the end.

The factions of anarchy vary widely, and can not necessarily coexist in the same community. For example, You would classify me as an anarcho-capitalist, yet I know some anarcho-communists, and I wouldn't want to live in that community, but the binging force is that I would be free to leave it at any time.
Most anarcho-capitalists sick of the mis-understanding of anarchy and the "image" of violence have started calling themselves Voluntaryists. I don't because, well, I like to shocked looks it puts on peoples faces. Then from their questions I can show how its not violent and its core principles.
Should have seen the look on the face when the head of HR here in Az heard me say I was one, it was priceless. Plus, its too hard for this redneck to say

reply to post by XJMatt


I agree, there is a huge difference between Anarchy and Chaos....Sadly many people do not understand this, including those claiming to be "Anarchist"....

Introduction threads...

Are for introductions.

Welcome to ATS, it’s time to introduce yourself…

Thread closed.