well i don't know from where you got this definition of anarchism that says that anarchism is encouraging terrorism as a way of reaction against the state but 2 things:
1. read articles and books that were written by the creators of this movement called anarchism and then come back and speak with me about anarchism.
2. well you know what.. if terrorism is needed against the state (and by this i mean government) then shell it be..
every state is using terrorism against it's own people so i think that gives us the choice to retaliate with terrorism.
but don't get me wrong. i do not encourage neither terrorism nor violence. i belive that anarchism should acquire it's goal by detecting the weak points of the system and by legal ways fight it.
1. read articles and books that were written by the creators of this movement called anarchism and then come back and speak with me about anarchism.
2. well you know what.. if terrorism is needed against the state (and by this i mean government) then shell it be..
every state is using terrorism against it's own people so i think that gives us the choice to retaliate with terrorism.
but don't get me wrong. i do not encourage neither terrorism nor violence. i belive that anarchism should acquire it's goal by detecting the weak points of the system and by legal ways fight it.
"I prefer to discount uncertain philosophy and stick to the common definitions
which tell us that Anarchy is a form of social life in which men live as
brothers, where nobody is in a position to oppress or exploit anyone else,
and in which all the means to achieve maximum moral and material development
are available to everyone; and Anarchism is the method by which to
achieve anarchy through freedom and without government, that is without
authoritarian organisms which, by using force, even, possibly for good ends,
impose their will on others."
definition of anarchism by errico malatesta, one of the creators and developers of the anarchism.
as you can see anarchism is against "authoritarian organisms which, by using force, even, possibly for good ends, impose their will on others."
that's mean that anarchism could never use force (terrorism) because this is what it is all against
which tell us that Anarchy is a form of social life in which men live as
brothers, where nobody is in a position to oppress or exploit anyone else,
and in which all the means to achieve maximum moral and material development
are available to everyone; and Anarchism is the method by which to
achieve anarchy through freedom and without government, that is without
authoritarian organisms which, by using force, even, possibly for good ends,
impose their will on others."
definition of anarchism by errico malatesta, one of the creators and developers of the anarchism.
as you can see anarchism is against "authoritarian organisms which, by using force, even, possibly for good ends, impose their will on others."
that's mean that anarchism could never use force (terrorism) because this is what it is all against
yes you do want the fall of society. how else would you cure all the ills of society.
Anarchists forward the idea of a society where man can shape his own life without being subject to force by his equals. Equality is thus an important part of anarchism and freedom, since every man and woman naturally is a free being; they are equally free though limited to their own ability and subject to the laws of physics and nature. But within this framework of rules, such as bodily strength, gravity and the earth’s revolving around the sun, only our minds set the limits for our achievements. Man is therefore the king of nature’s creations, the very top creation of evolution.
This creativity and richness possible is today limited by the evils of force-based society. The history of man is a history of aggression. In old times tribes used violence to conquer the richness of other tribes, simply because it was possible and seemed easier than to produce such richness using one’s own energy and effort. City states, kingdoms and imperial powers followed in the same method of conduct: stealing the richness of others through the use of force and aggression.
Thousands of years of human history, i.e. human lives, have been wasted to the pointless struggle man against man to steal the fruits of the others’ labor. The result of this darkness is striking: a society where any action creates both winners and losers is a losing society on any level. A society where creation is punished by the use of force of the non-creating is a barbarian society with only limitations. The possibilities are constantly overshadowed by the limits of one man to stand tall against the aggression of the multitude. Force feeds force in an ever increasing circle of pain, oppression, exploitation, and poverty.
The abandonment of such oppressive conduct is the solution for mankind to break the evil circle of force. It includes the abandonment of all force-based structures of contemporary society in order to break the chains of man. This is anarchism: breaking the man-made chains that hold our faces down in the mud; breaking down the castles of our oppressors; freeing our fellow men to the life they have earned and will build for themselves through hard work and fellowships; defeating the political class to establish the force-free society where men will live peacefully beside men--where force is only a last resort and a means of defense.
The goal is obvious to the anarchist and anyone wishing to knock down the aggression of our age: the source of force, oppression, exploitation, aggression, and usury must be abandoned and crushed. The state must go.
Despite this correct identification of what must be, many anarchists tend to make fixed plans for the structures of post-state society. Such plans or blueprints of post-state society are the virus eating the anarchist movement from the inside. Anarchists forwarding such “free” blueprint societies as truths or must-be’s are as dangerous adversaries as the state itself.
Anarchism, the force-free society, does not allow for a model or blueprint to be realized or enforced. There can be no compulsory structure of post-state society under anarchism unless a new state, new government, is instituted. Under anarchism one man cannot force his will upon others, and a multitude cannot force the one individual. The very essence of anarchism is voluntary conduct--the use of voluntary means to reach agreements of societal change.
Voluntary conduct and equality go hand in hand, if one is not respected so is the other restricted. There can only be equality if every man is respected for what he is, wants, and chooses. There is only voluntary conduct if every man’s actions and choices are equally respected and unhampered. From this follows the core of anarchist thought: every man (i.e. man, woman, and child) is free to choose whatever he sees fit as long as it does not involuntarily limit the choices of another.
Contrary to this is the forceful blueprint society of today and throughout history. The future under anarchy cannot be planned or controlled. The meaning of anarchy is the absence of forceful structures through which one or many individuals can control others’ choices. There cannot be a mandatory blueprint for anarchist society, since all individual choices have to be equally respected. There can only be hopes, dreams, and plans to create one’s own Shangri-la, to create the future one wishes for oneself and companions. In freedom and equality there can be no king, no minister, no master, and no god.
With no gods or masters, i.e. in anarchy, who will stop the hard-working, the intelligent, the lucky? If there is a structure to stop them, it will not be anarchy. Effort, intelligence, and luck may upset equality through the choices of the achieving, intelligent and lucky. Such “inequalities” are bound to come about in freedom, since people are different and choose differently. Any restrictions put on the hardworking, intelligent or lucky will mean the end of anarchy and freedom and the birth of force, coercion, and through these oppression, exploitation, and usury. Forceful societal structures are not compatible with anarchy, even if the results of voluntary choices and agreements by free men under anarchy to us are seemingly unjust or inappropriate.
If such inequalities effected by anarchists voluntarily working alone or cooperating with equals are stopped “spontaneously” by the actions of other free men and women cooperating only to subdue the successful, anarchy will inescapably lead to the formation of government. The very people seeking to strengthen freedom and equality are the very end of freedom themselves. Turning to force to uphold freedom can only further restrict what freedom is left. Force, aggression and coercion are incompatible with anarchy.
The turning to violence as means of conduct will start the circle of force yet again. If aggression and violence is used under anarchy, people will eventually realize that “crime pays” and hence plunge into the use of violence for an easy profit. Thus, they elevate themselves over others through the use of force against their fellow men--only to forfeit the products of free men’s labor. Such a mafia society is not anarchy; it is chaos and fascism. Such a society is even worse than the oppressive monopoly structures of the state. It is mob rule. And it is no doubt the end of freedom and anarchy.
Anarchy offers many promises and opportunities, of which all can be realized in a not too distant future. Such state of freedom or anarchy can serve as the means and basis to fulfill our personal hopes and dreams, but a free society cannot be shaped, steered, governed or ruled without losing what freedom there is. Creating a blueprint for anarchist society, or demanding certain behavior of our fellow men, is a creation of government. An anarchist making a blueprint for all people in anarchist society does not seek anarchy, but seeks the powers of the state: to shape the wills and actions of free men and the structures of society.
Under anarchy, a society under freedom and equality, one has only the right to oneself and answers only to oneself. It is not a society without masters, but a society with only masters. Under anarchy your plans are realizable in accordance to your efforts and skill, and cannot be limited or restricted by other men. Your blueprint for anarchy is thus as true as any other: it is applicable to your future only.
Welcome to anarchy, where you are the master of your ability and labor and where no restrictions apply. Any limitations are only in your own mind, yours to overcome.
how are you supposed to accomplish this without tearing society down and rebuilding it? that's what anarchists want to do, right or wrong.
Anarchists forward the idea of a society where man can shape his own life without being subject to force by his equals. Equality is thus an important part of anarchism and freedom, since every man and woman naturally is a free being; they are equally free though limited to their own ability and subject to the laws of physics and nature. But within this framework of rules, such as bodily strength, gravity and the earth’s revolving around the sun, only our minds set the limits for our achievements. Man is therefore the king of nature’s creations, the very top creation of evolution.
This creativity and richness possible is today limited by the evils of force-based society. The history of man is a history of aggression. In old times tribes used violence to conquer the richness of other tribes, simply because it was possible and seemed easier than to produce such richness using one’s own energy and effort. City states, kingdoms and imperial powers followed in the same method of conduct: stealing the richness of others through the use of force and aggression.
Thousands of years of human history, i.e. human lives, have been wasted to the pointless struggle man against man to steal the fruits of the others’ labor. The result of this darkness is striking: a society where any action creates both winners and losers is a losing society on any level. A society where creation is punished by the use of force of the non-creating is a barbarian society with only limitations. The possibilities are constantly overshadowed by the limits of one man to stand tall against the aggression of the multitude. Force feeds force in an ever increasing circle of pain, oppression, exploitation, and poverty.
The abandonment of such oppressive conduct is the solution for mankind to break the evil circle of force. It includes the abandonment of all force-based structures of contemporary society in order to break the chains of man. This is anarchism: breaking the man-made chains that hold our faces down in the mud; breaking down the castles of our oppressors; freeing our fellow men to the life they have earned and will build for themselves through hard work and fellowships; defeating the political class to establish the force-free society where men will live peacefully beside men--where force is only a last resort and a means of defense.
The goal is obvious to the anarchist and anyone wishing to knock down the aggression of our age: the source of force, oppression, exploitation, aggression, and usury must be abandoned and crushed. The state must go.
Despite this correct identification of what must be, many anarchists tend to make fixed plans for the structures of post-state society. Such plans or blueprints of post-state society are the virus eating the anarchist movement from the inside. Anarchists forwarding such “free” blueprint societies as truths or must-be’s are as dangerous adversaries as the state itself.
Anarchism, the force-free society, does not allow for a model or blueprint to be realized or enforced. There can be no compulsory structure of post-state society under anarchism unless a new state, new government, is instituted. Under anarchism one man cannot force his will upon others, and a multitude cannot force the one individual. The very essence of anarchism is voluntary conduct--the use of voluntary means to reach agreements of societal change.
Voluntary conduct and equality go hand in hand, if one is not respected so is the other restricted. There can only be equality if every man is respected for what he is, wants, and chooses. There is only voluntary conduct if every man’s actions and choices are equally respected and unhampered. From this follows the core of anarchist thought: every man (i.e. man, woman, and child) is free to choose whatever he sees fit as long as it does not involuntarily limit the choices of another.
Contrary to this is the forceful blueprint society of today and throughout history. The future under anarchy cannot be planned or controlled. The meaning of anarchy is the absence of forceful structures through which one or many individuals can control others’ choices. There cannot be a mandatory blueprint for anarchist society, since all individual choices have to be equally respected. There can only be hopes, dreams, and plans to create one’s own Shangri-la, to create the future one wishes for oneself and companions. In freedom and equality there can be no king, no minister, no master, and no god.
With no gods or masters, i.e. in anarchy, who will stop the hard-working, the intelligent, the lucky? If there is a structure to stop them, it will not be anarchy. Effort, intelligence, and luck may upset equality through the choices of the achieving, intelligent and lucky. Such “inequalities” are bound to come about in freedom, since people are different and choose differently. Any restrictions put on the hardworking, intelligent or lucky will mean the end of anarchy and freedom and the birth of force, coercion, and through these oppression, exploitation, and usury. Forceful societal structures are not compatible with anarchy, even if the results of voluntary choices and agreements by free men under anarchy to us are seemingly unjust or inappropriate.
If such inequalities effected by anarchists voluntarily working alone or cooperating with equals are stopped “spontaneously” by the actions of other free men and women cooperating only to subdue the successful, anarchy will inescapably lead to the formation of government. The very people seeking to strengthen freedom and equality are the very end of freedom themselves. Turning to force to uphold freedom can only further restrict what freedom is left. Force, aggression and coercion are incompatible with anarchy.
The turning to violence as means of conduct will start the circle of force yet again. If aggression and violence is used under anarchy, people will eventually realize that “crime pays” and hence plunge into the use of violence for an easy profit. Thus, they elevate themselves over others through the use of force against their fellow men--only to forfeit the products of free men’s labor. Such a mafia society is not anarchy; it is chaos and fascism. Such a society is even worse than the oppressive monopoly structures of the state. It is mob rule. And it is no doubt the end of freedom and anarchy.
Anarchy offers many promises and opportunities, of which all can be realized in a not too distant future. Such state of freedom or anarchy can serve as the means and basis to fulfill our personal hopes and dreams, but a free society cannot be shaped, steered, governed or ruled without losing what freedom there is. Creating a blueprint for anarchist society, or demanding certain behavior of our fellow men, is a creation of government. An anarchist making a blueprint for all people in anarchist society does not seek anarchy, but seeks the powers of the state: to shape the wills and actions of free men and the structures of society.
Under anarchy, a society under freedom and equality, one has only the right to oneself and answers only to oneself. It is not a society without masters, but a society with only masters. Under anarchy your plans are realizable in accordance to your efforts and skill, and cannot be limited or restricted by other men. Your blueprint for anarchy is thus as true as any other: it is applicable to your future only.
Welcome to anarchy, where you are the master of your ability and labor and where no restrictions apply. Any limitations are only in your own mind, yours to overcome.
how are you supposed to accomplish this without tearing society down and rebuilding it? that's what anarchists want to do, right or wrong.
shep, first of all great text.. total truth..
second, with this kind of amazing text how can you NOT love anarchy.. it only seeks your freedom.
now, you see what i meant when i say anarchy for the public is like an utopia??
you, like the rest of the public, do not belive that this kind of society can come without using terrorism and illegal actions!
in the text there was not written that the only way to build anarchy is by force (i.e. terrorism).
that is what YOU concluded out of the text.
if you belive that with the right actions (without terrorism) we will accomplish this goal and teach others that you DO NOT need power to accomplish your goals then you'll see that anarchy will come.
damn this discussion got way to far..
you belive and think in what you belive and think.. i'll respect that as i'm sure you respect my point of view..
in hebrew we have this proverb "every man will live with his belief".
nice proverb. sure taught me a lot.
second, with this kind of amazing text how can you NOT love anarchy.. it only seeks your freedom.
now, you see what i meant when i say anarchy for the public is like an utopia??
you, like the rest of the public, do not belive that this kind of society can come without using terrorism and illegal actions!
in the text there was not written that the only way to build anarchy is by force (i.e. terrorism).
that is what YOU concluded out of the text.
if you belive that with the right actions (without terrorism) we will accomplish this goal and teach others that you DO NOT need power to accomplish your goals then you'll see that anarchy will come.
damn this discussion got way to far..
you belive and think in what you belive and think.. i'll respect that as i'm sure you respect my point of view..
in hebrew we have this proverb "every man will live with his belief".
nice proverb. sure taught me a lot.
I don't plan on reading all 7 pages of this, but I should point out some things that applies to the following few pages...
dictionary definitions should never be used when discussing idealogical social systems
Fascist communism is nothing like what Marx had in mind throughout the course of his writing. He actually envisioned something much closer to the anarchy that shnitsel speaks of...
I've noticed that a lot of Americans (as i look down at you all from my pedestal...just kidding...but i can't notice how people in other countries act considering i've never been there) are oblivious to the true meanings of words.
Tell and American that the Republican Party adheres to liberal economic policies and they just might go crossed eyed...
dictionary definitions should never be used when discussing idealogical social systems
Fascist communism is nothing like what Marx had in mind throughout the course of his writing. He actually envisioned something much closer to the anarchy that shnitsel speaks of...
I've noticed that a lot of Americans (as i look down at you all from my pedestal...just kidding...but i can't notice how people in other countries act considering i've never been there) are oblivious to the true meanings of words.
Tell and American that the Republican Party adheres to liberal economic policies and they just might go crossed eyed...