entrangermercenary1 wrote:
andyh wrote:
entrangermercenary1 wrote:
Politics (from Greek politikos "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the art or science of
influencing people on a civic, or individual level, when there are more than 2 people involved.
Propoganda anybody
Correct!
You are learning something after all merc, I'm proud
So if politics is about influencing people what do you think any political movement is?
Isn't that what the labour party or or the tories do? Since when did votes come into it? Or even matter?
All that matters is that people are influenced and hasn't that been going on since Aristotle?
So really what matters? Who or what do you support?
Do you support criminal behaviour or do you support decent behaviour?
If you support criminal behaviour and outsourcing responsibility then you're with the establishment, if not then you are with anarchism
You have to be, because anarchism supports self control, that is its whole intent. The media (which is with the establishment btw) promulgates the opposite intent, it says that anarchism is about chaos, disorder, crime, yet we already have precisely that.
You have been PERSUADED to think otherwise ofc.... :p
Actually im with the Government, because you dreamers have never been in a place without government and seen what actually occurs
Its not fluffy lets be all together, its lets get the biggest weapon and fuck everybody over.
Propaganda you can spew out, human nature you cant change
So how will you combat criminals ?
Seems everybody is avoiding the big question !!! Who will say what happens to somebody if they kill a person ?? lol dream on
Simply not having a government is not anarchy in the political sense. Because
anarchism is a specific ideology.
What happens when someone kills somebody is an open question
exactly like it is capitalist democracies.
It''s a stupid question akin to saying
we're going to overthrow the king and declare a republic...oh hang on what happens to murderers...shit let's stay as a monarchy....
Anarchism does not mean no social rules. What it (in the sense I'm talking about anyway - don't forget anarchism
is not one singular ideology and some strains are very far apart from one another) is about is
organising society on a non hierarchical basis based on cooperation so, y'know, you don't have the super rich and a bunch of poor people and people dying in big wars because some guy felt like telling them to go die. Murder would still be punished...exactly how is as hypothetical and meaningless as saying
oh well in 2050 murderers will be stoned to death in the Tower of London...and that's the way it will be. You need to drag yourself away from this dumb notion that without elites everything collapses...because then the thought might occur that it's the rich and powerful who cause all the big problems.
Why the fuck whenever anyone mentions anarchism, does some twat start saying
oh yeah?...well exactly how will cornflakes be manufactured in an anarchist society then? I mean, when people think about the French revolution are they thinking
well did they lay out a plan regarding how a man who stole a chicken would be punished before storming the Bastille?. When John Locke wrote about the social contract, were other philosophers saying
that's all well and good but we need to know how shoe manufacturing will occur in your ideal state?
No offence mate, but you're talking about a subject you obviously know absolutely nothing about. You come across like those clowns on the DIF who claim Obama is a Marxist.
Peter Kropotkin, Michael Bakunin, Elisee Reclus, Pierre Joesph Proudhon, Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Rudolf Rocker, Alex Comfort, Murray Bookchin, hell Noam Chomsky...William Godwin...you know, Mary Shelley's dad....he kinda set the groundwork for modern philosophical anarchism in about 1793...there is a rich heritage of anarchist thought...why don't you try finding out what the fuck you're talking about before spouting off?
Sheesh.
I added some bolded points, I feel they offer in part an answer for your question
, perhaps you feel that the question we should pose anarchists is, "how do you go about achieving this:
Without some form of political activity? What therefore is the political activity anarchists propose?
Also you say "anarchism is a specific ideology" then go on to contradict that by saying there are "many strains".
It seems to me anarchism is an ideology applied to many situations and systems with varying degrees of success, it's never applied in the idealistic way modern Westerners believe but it's endemic throughout society, freedom of the press, free markets, free trade, free information, all under the rule of money.
A committee ? Who says who is on the committee ? Who dictates the sentence ?
