Pick your flavor of Anarchy.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Yea, I don't get that...

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Malice In Wonderland

Anarcho-Primitivist.

WHAT THE FUCK, MALICE!!
Those are the worst!

[homelitexl]

national socialist all the way bitches woooooooooo my uncle started it im gonna finish wooo

[Duane]

Anarcho-Syndicalism.

[Alan]

I used to be into anarchosyndicalism, and I keep trying to do syndicalist action, but I thin the solution is for everyone to become a student-worker instead of having solely the proletariat as the working class in charge of society. It's a slight difference, but it makes me more of an anarchocommie.

[Alan]

http://libcom.org/library/what-anarcho-syndicalism

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Alan

I used to be into anarchosyndicalism, and I keep trying to do syndicalist action, but I thin the solution is for everyone to become a student-worker instead of having solely the proletariat as the working class in charge of society. It's a slight difference, but it makes me more of an anarchocommie.

It's not exactly a day and night difference between the two.

[Stormtrooper of Death]

There's a problem here.

Now this is really why anarchy wouldn't work.

If we're all united by the same idea, then why are we fighting over details. The only reason "our" revolution has failed is because we're too busy fighting. Who cares about the details, just get this stuff done.

It's really funny, I thought about this yesterday.

And now, I'm never going to post in this rediculous subforum again.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Stormtrooper of Death

If we're all united by the same idea, then why are we fighting over details. The only reason "our" revolution has failed is because we're too busy fighting. Who cares about the details, just get this stuff done.

Who cares about the details? When they had the revolution in France, people had the same idea. Do you know what the result was? PEOPLE DIED. Plus, there's always that tiny little fact that their revolution brought about more repressive governments.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Stormtrooper of Death

There's a problem here.

Now this is really why anarchy wouldn't work.

If we're all united by the same idea, then why are we fighting over details. The only reason "our" revolution has failed is because we're too busy fighting. Who cares about the details, just get this stuff done.

Because if you don't fight about the details now, you fight about them later.

[Stormtrooper of Death]

People are already dying today, and will countinue to die without any government. It's a simple fact.

EDIT:

Read this:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...ogId=372513231

It's an excellent article.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Stormtrooper of Death

People are already dying today, and will countinue to die without any government. It's a simple fact.

You're a fucking idiot. Go away.

[Stormtrooper of Death]

Did you read that article?

Probably not, you're all too elitist for that stuff right?

[Stormtrooper of Death]

To quote another guy from a great forum:

"I don't give a fuck if you're anarcho-Christian, anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-fuckin-tellytubby, you should ave a right to practise whatever belief or socio-economic system you wish so long as it doesn't impinge on other societies around you. If you go around tellin people 'You're concept of anarchism does not agree with mine and is therefore wrong and you're no longer in Club Anarchy, give back your badge and your zines' then you're basically shootin down the movement itself.

People can believe whatever the fuck they want and belong to whatever institutions they fancy so long as it doesn't impinge on you. You haven't the authority to say otherwise."

[Delkaetre]

Aaand that's a great way to have some survival of the fittest Hobbesian twats of anarchists fuck things up for everyone else.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by Stormtrooper of Death

To quote another guy from a great forum:

"I don't give a fuck if you're anarcho-Christian, anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-fuckin-tellytubby, you should ave a right to practise whatever belief or socio-economic system you wish so long as it doesn't impinge on other societies around you. If you go around tellin people 'You're concept of anarchism does not agree with mine and is therefore wrong and you're no longer in Club Anarchy, give back your badge and your zines' then you're basically shootin down the movement itself.

People can believe whatever the fuck they want and belong to whatever institutions they fancy so long as it doesn't impinge on you. You haven't the authority to say otherwise."

Knock it off, dude. Your posts are embarrassing to read.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Stormtrooper of Death

If we're all united by the same idea, then why are we fighting over details.

The difference between anarcho-collectivism and fucking PRIMITIVISM is not just 'details', dumbfuck.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

What the fuck? Why are so many people primitivists? You like the idea of being anarchists, but are just incapable of imagining a stateless society that isn't a fucking neolithic?

Speaking of details, the neolithic age wasn't one of hunter-gathering, in fact it refers specifically to the emergence of agriculture and non-egalitarian societies. You might prefer paleolithic or mesolithic.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Speaking of details, the neolithic age wasn't one of hunter-gathering, in fact it refers specifically to the emergence of agriculture and non-egalitarian societies. You might prefer paleolithic or mesolithic.

I meant neolithic with respect to technological development, i.e. agriculture. As demented as they tend to be, few primitivists hold that the cultivation of crops and livestock should be altogether abandoned. I was operating under the assumption that not even SoD is so stupid.

[SweetJane]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

The difference between anarcho-collectivism and fucking PRIMITIVISM is not just 'details', dumbfuck.

Seriously. I feel like the best plan a few people on this board have for an anarchist society came from watching Mad Max.

Anyway, I said pretty early on that I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. I'm interested in most schools of anarchist collectivism and socialism.

Also, though a lot of us disagree on certain things like the effectiveness of different schools of activism and methods of class warfare, at least we're trying to visualize the way things would work out for everyone after the fact, which is the WHOLE POINT. This attitude of anarchism being whatever you want it to be comes from people who don't know anything about anarchist history or theory.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I meant neolithic with respect to technological development, i.e. agriculture. As demented as they tend to be, few primitivists hold that the cultivation of crops and livestock should be altogether abandoned. I was operating under the assumption that not even SoD is so stupid.

Hmmmm... That's a pity. I'd actually understand the anarcho-primitivist point of view if they suggested a parting from agriculture entirely, because at least then they'd be backing an immediate-return system that ethnographically seems to equate to a truly egalitarian society.

[HumanePain]

Now I am curious: I have read little of anarcho-communism and have some questions. Which authors and books would anyone recommend?

I wish to read how it would avoid the demand imbalance that would eventually occur, for example, the majority grow cauliflower, but I detest it and so grow cilantro instead because I prefer it.

Meanwhile, whilst the majority manufactures clothing, someone else makes wind chimes, because she feels like it.

The exchange market would eventually offer more useless things and less needed things.

What regulates or prevents the social needs from eventually suffering for want of basics because everyone eventually makes what they want to make or grow what they want to grow?

At some point it would seem the majority would say to the individual, "you will grow cauliflower, and you will make clothes".

I would appreciate any recommendations for books that would address the above and similar scenarios of local justice in anarcho-communistic settings.

Thanks.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Which authors and books would anyone recommend?

Peter Kropotkin and Ricardo Flores Magón.

I wish to read how it would avoid the demand imbalance that would eventually occur, for example, the majority grow cauliflower, but I detest it and so grow cilantro instead because I prefer it.

Communism inherently means that production is democratically guided for the good of the community as a whole.

Meanwhile, whilst the majority manufactures clothing, someone else makes wind chimes, because she feels like it.

Why would she do that? Where did she get the capable resources to fabricate wind chimes and who is she making them for if no one wants them? Is this a feasible scenario under capitalism, or you just think it would happen under communism somehow?

The exchange market would eventually offer more useless things and less needed things.

Yeah. so down the market, yay communism.

What regulates or prevents the social needs from eventually suffering for want of basics because everyone eventually makes what they want to make or grow what they want to grow?

I'm confused, are we talking still about anarchocommunism or what?

At some point it would seem the majority would say to the individual, "you will grow cauliflower, and you will make clothes".

Kind of how a boss tells an employer what they will and won't do; except in here it's the people you know who are asking you to be a part of a civil society. Why is it oppressive to have people depend on you as much as you depend on them?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Alan

Peter Kropotkin and Ricardo Flores Magón.

Communism inherently means that production is democratically guided for the good of the community as a whole.

Why would she do that? Where did she get the capable resources to fabricate wind chimes and who is she making them for if no one wants them? Is this a feasible scenario under capitalism, or you just think it would happen under communism somehow?

Yeah. so down the market, yay communism.

I'm confused, are we talking still about anarchocommunism or what?

Kind of how a boss tells an employer what they will and won't do; except in here it's the people you know who are asking you to be a part of a civil society. Why is it oppressive to have people depend on you as much as you depend on them?

Because that "dependence" leads to corruption in some form,and could cause greater harm to the society than good.

And that dependence could be used as a way to control others that don't agree with everyone else.

That's why I'm against a Direct Democracy,because in it's simplest form,Direct Democracy is the will of the majority against the will of the Minority.

In other words it's like two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what they'll have for dinner.

Not to say that a Representative Democracy is immune from corruption,over time (As we have seen in the U.S. in particular) representatives can be bought off,black mailed,or they could have an agenda to push from the start.

No political system or lack of political system is perfect.

For two reasons,power and personal Greed.

[JCC]

Go.
Fuck.
Yourself.