batou wrote:
I know exactly what you are, Bats.

You're a rare treat!

Ab Origine wrote:
You're just being modest.

i-baster wrote:
Anarchists are totally against state and taxation.
Thats something for socialists to discuss.

There's a big difference between 'labels' as used in the 'truth movement' so to speak and simple definitions used for purposes of communication.
Using nonsense terms is something more applicable to politicians.
I would simply say this...if someone wants to use a word to describe something then its best to use the one which most closely fits what is needed to communicate. If you mean something else, then say something else.
Anarchism is not 'left wing' nor is it just a union movement, it predates both. It is the very opposite of anything political because politics concerns itself with authority.
The only authority anarchism recognises is of the self. It has nothing to do with 'petit bourgeois utopianism', it is simply about nature. The only laws worth a damn are the laws of nature, anarchism is about only restraining your thoughts about how to live your life personally (not some group utopia) within the laws of physics rather than the laws of man.
Money is a creation of man, not nature. Therefore it has nothing to do with anarchism, in fact, it has no place in anarchism. This is why myself and dubs like RBE models.

There are of course less pure levels of anarchism that involve some kind of state co-operation or involvement in the present economic system, these are not just 'anarchism' though, they are anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism and then there are lesser versions of the same, US Libertarianism for example is watered down anarcho-capitalism.

So the question has to be , why would you want to apply a 'label' to 'anarchism' as being some kind of watered down socialist statist crap? There is no harm in being accurate.
If you want to do otherwise then we may as well say a balloon is a tyre and a lawyer is a judge.

If labels are a bad idea then a balloon is not a balloon, a baboon is not a baboon and bendoon is well...benloon.

i-baster wrote: Funnily enough, I feel the complete opposite. I wish people would remember what their cause is, remember what they're supposed to be opposing, and be consistent with their supposed ideals.

Here is an example which is also consistent with what Andy is saying. I read this page the other day:

endoftheamericandream.com/archives/40-po...are-exactly-the-same

Now, I agree with the vast majority of these points, and of course the principle of what is being said. I could quibble with a couple, but there is one point that is absolutely ludicrous, and has no place on the list. It's number 34:
Yeah. Every right thinking person believes that is wrong. What would you prefer; homosexuals to be troop leaders but to stay in the closet? Or should gays just go nowhere near children at all? I expect they're all on the verge of trying to turn them gay or molest young boys at any given moment.

It's fucking ridiculous, and it makes no sense, and it's hypocritical. You want government out of the way, you're sick of this corrupt system that dictates how people live their lives...but you want them to strictly enforce dictats that you agree with - based almost certainly on your religious beliefs - and meddle in the running of privately run, not-for-profit organisations! "I don't want to live under this control system...I want to live under a different control system with rules that I agree with". You don't want freedom then. Quit fucking complaining.

This is the problem that I see, that there are many people who are obviously aware that things are not run in the favour of the common man and woman, but they can't let go of their own ideas and beliefs that run completely contrary to their ideals, so they have to undergo some absurd form of mental gymnastics in an attempt to justify it to themselves and others.

The principle expressed by Bill Hicks that everyone should be free in nature to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others to do whatever they want is the credo we should be working towards. If you want to put a Christian slant on it, I believe the expression is "do unto others as you would have them do to you". Would homosexuals ban you from from being a Scout troop leader? Probably not. So why is it okay for you to do the same to them, yet also profess that you want freedom? This is a warped definition of freedom, indeed.

dubmeup wrote:
This brings us nicely to the labels that other people give us. No matter how you see yourself somebody else probably does not see you that way. Not sure what else to say about that though. I think perhaps people who hide their heart are too concerned with the labels others give them although this seems odd when most people probably label Icke as nutty.

andyh wrote:
Well yes in a perfect world Anarchists would not advocate tax or state but most Anarchists live under state and pay taxes. I you live in a sunny climate it would be rather stupid to walk around dresses like an Eskimo. As an "anarchist" living under capitalism I feel we must apply our ideals to the place we live. We can discuss things. We do not have to be all or nothing about things.

Well I use labels rarely and this topic has turned into a perfect example of why. However I used the word and applied my meaning of the word. Sorry if you have a different definition of the word. To clarify though when I use that word I apply my meaning not anybody else`s. Sorry.

Now we are getting deeper into word meanings because politics to me is life and comes into play all the time. Anarchism is a political ideology even though it proposes that the state be abolished.

I didn`t mention state or watering anything down. Sorry if you disagree with my definition of Anarchism.

Labels like balloon etc are pretty universal. People don`t argue too much over what a balloon is. They do however argue over what Anarchism is. They argue over most things but I never saw anybody argue about what a Baboon is. You see a Balloon and a Baboon are things that you can photograph and describe in detail. you can touch and feel them in a very real sense. To compare a Balloon to something as complex as Anarchism is misunderstanding both.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
To clarify, you think people should not wear their hearts on their sleeves? I am just confused by how you think the opposite exactly.

i-baster wrote:
+1

i-baster wrote: Or you can opt out and be self employed.
Do you think successful self employed guys are authoritarians or followers?
lol
Don't worry about it, its called English and it has a dictionary.
Not everyones been trained to use it properly unfortunately, that's the idea though

You do realise what you just did there yep?
You just associated a word with complete opposite meaning as being associated.

Another exaple in use, particularly in American English is this little pearler:- "Liberal Fascism".
How about communist capitalism?
Again, you don't know the definition of politics do you?
politicsplural of pol·i·tics (Noun)Noun: The activities associated with the governance of a country or area.
The activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries.

'The art or science of government'

From wikipedia:
The word government is derived from the Latin infinitive [], meaning "to govern" or "to manage"

mente:
Etymology

From Latin mente, ablative singular of mēns (“mind”).

Do you understand now?

WHY WOULD ANARCHISM BE ABOUT MIND CONTROL OUTSIDE OF THE SELF?
Why would anarchism be about judging or persuading others?
Why would it be about any form of social control?
Why would it be about violence?

Anarchism is about specifically resisting mind control. It is about discipline.
It's an inner purity of thought and balance that few people are capable of without a liberal education which ofc only a select few get.

By saying that it is a political ideology then you are associating it with force of one kind or another over others, because THAT is what politics is. Specifically politics is about the creation of something alien to nature. The state.
Its a creation of Plato's, someone who understood the mind and its workings all too well.
Gue mentioned the state stuff, you just mentioned left wing is all and people on this board of all places should know damn well its nothing but an economic flavour.

And why do you think the definition of what anarchism is and what liberal is (along with a few other words I could care to mention) are NOT universal hmmmm? Why are you arguing over this specific word?
Think.
Could it perhaps be that such language is not present or discussed in our education system?
Could it perhaps be that our media uses such words in completely opposite contexts?
Could it be then that the average joe really actually has a completely fucked up view of the world and is completely incapable of expressing himself powerfully? Made impotent and pathetic to remain enslaved and trapped within a system designed to do just that?
Wow, perish the thought eh?

andyh wrote:
Hi andyh, excuse my methods of poking lol, I do enjoy it though when you post about anarchy, it's always informative, i disagree with some bit's of that.
That is part of the reason I see Anarchists as Utopian idealists, if you take what these words actually mean I think the statement implies this: Anarchists are totally against redistribution of wealth (taxes), and against political/social/collective organization (the state), thus are against the very means of changing or obtaining anything they speak about.

Imo It is totally ridiculous to think that abolishing all state or government without redistributing wealth or turning the state against huge NGO's, conglomerates, trust's, corporations, monarchies etc would end in everyone abandoning money and living differently to now, in accordance with "natural Law", gee I'm sure there is some natural Law in Nietzsche's philosophy that justifies much of what goes on in the world, between "birds of prey" and "sheep", what do you mean by "natural law", survival of the fittest?.
Have you been reading Max Stirner this week?
www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/n.htm#individualism

And I love how you type a lot of text in a desperate attempt to get people to forget that you yourself associated anarchism with the state and taxation lol.

The trouble you're having is with associating 'being against' with 'forcefully against'.

Anarchism is a state of individual mind, a 'taoist like' philosophy. It has nothing to do with forcing anyone to do anything.
You need to read some books a hell of a lot older than anything by Marx to know that though.
Try Lao Tzu, Zeno, Aristippus..even Homer. They didn't have unions in those days, no labour and tory party or any of that stuff.
They had authority alright and the struggle was going on then just as it is now, just as they had individualist thought.
Everything else is just a sideshow.

andyh wrote: It's not really a trouble, I see it more like, Anarchists are against the state and modern capitalism in theory, but not in practice, hence utopians.
That is not the definition of Anarchism I get reading "anarchist authors", I don't get much parallel between reading Bakunin and the Tao Te Ching, there isn't much they share in common, I do notice parallels with the Dialectical Materialism of Marx though

Guevarista wrote: Are you against capitalism in practice?
Can anyone be?
Do you live in the jungle? LOL!!
Isn't everyone on this forum 'against' the government?
Because they cannot do anything about it to change it are they therefore 'utopian'?
Are you also therefore not 'utopian'?


I said Lao Tzu did I not?
'Left libertarians have been highly influenced by Laozi as well. In his 1937 book Nationalism and Culture, the anarcho-syndicalist writer and activist Rudolf Rocker praised Laozi's "gentle wisdom" and understanding of the opposition between political power and the cultural activities of the people and community.[40] In his 1910 article for the Encyclopadia Britannica, Peter Kropotkin also noted that Laozi was among the earliest exponents of essentially anarchist concepts.[41] More recently, anarchists such as John P. Clark and Ursula K. Le Guin have written about the conjunction between anarchism and Taoism in various ways, highlighting the teachings of Laozi in particular. [42] In her translation of the Tao Te Ching, Le Guin writes that Laozi "does not see political power as magic. He sees rightful power as earned and wrongful power as usurped... He sees sacrifice of self or others as a corruption of power, and power as available to anyone who follows the Way'

Its right there for anyone to see.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lao_tzu

i-baster wrote: I don't think people shouldn't be passionate. I do think that when you demand idealism from others you should live up to it yourself, even if you have to ditch some of your treasured beliefs and feelings along the way. You were saying that many people come from some sort of 'angle'. I agree with you, I just don't think this is a good thing, You should want to get down to the bottom of what's going on, and to have a consistent values system, not wear your heart on your sleeve and have a partial viewpoint. I'm ready to trash everything I believe tomorrow if someone can show me that it's incorrect. That is the way it should be for everyone. I don't think many of these people are ready to let go of their treasured beliefs, even if it leads them into contradictory opinions, such as apparently wishing to ban openly gay scout leaders.

andyh wrote: See there are a lot of things there that I think go unspoken which is why I brought up Anarchism.
Yes I am against Capitalism in practice, totally and no I am not Utopian the ends I am working towards are actual and fairly imminent, no thanks to me specifically, and preclude the continued exploitation of people and the environment unlike Anarchism.

To varying degrees yes, do you agree anybody can be?
I don't think everyone here is really "against the government", i don't really know if people have any interest in politics tbh?
I think people can do things to change the government, but not by non-participation or ignoring the fact it is there serving the demands of those who do participate.
Do you think nobody can do anything to change the government?

Again to clarify my point re your raising these obscure books, reading Zeno or the old Taoists one could equally as easily draw a similarly vague/general parallel towards Marx's work as a development of the Dialectical expansion of reality those authors alluded to.

Guevarista wrote: Jesus what are you planning, the next great armed revolution or something?
Which cupboard have you been locked in the past few years?
Like I said before, are you planning the next armed revolution? Have you got an army of a million men armed to the teeth and willing to die fighting for it?
Ofc you haven't, so the answer is obvious.
Marx also mentions colluding with the state, something Lao Tzu distincly does not.
Again, anarchism is not a political agenda. You would know that had you read the early works on the topic.


You're just a socialist statist who wants to identify with being an anarchist. I've no idea why and don't care tbh.
If people want to carry on in their ignorance using words for completely different meanings than originally intended then they will continue to do so. Such is the nature of the beast, it always has been and will always continue to be so imho.

I have provided the important info for ppl to research if they like.
That info was in the form of a question, 'Why are words like anarchism and liberal' so widely misunderstood?'
When you have the answer then you will understand what I'm talking about

Yes isn`t it lucky that we have the dictionary to rely on for the meaning of labels? Sadly the dictionary meaning of Anarchism is very brief in all the different meanings it gives. Kind of vague and it also associates Anarchy with mayhem and lawlessness which is perhaps why it is often misused as a word and misunderstood as a philosophy.

Also politics does not only relate to government. Politics, again from various dictionaries, has a number of meanings including a person`s personal politics. So I would say that Anarchism is political. If government is political then removal or the absents of government is also political I would argue.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
All I mean by wearing their hearts on their sleeves is just that they are open and honest about their views. I don`t think people should be anything but open to ideas. Having said that if you are for equal right for example then why would you ever advocate anything that went against that? I mean if a scout leader happens to be gay why should they hide it? I can not think of any reason to change that stand. It doesn`t mean that I could not discuss it in an open manner though.

i-baster wrote: Yes,yes, keep going find older dictionaries and older books which reference it.

Sigh....again keep going and find older dictionaries and look for the earliest use of the word.

Also note how you used the word 'person' there?

Andy H:Do you think violence is the only way to change the government?
Marx does not mention colluding with the state in it's current form, he advocates "smashing the state" quite openly in many of his books, specifically the book on the Paris Commune.

I think Bakunin, Blanqui, Proudhon, Kropotkin, and those around that era is as early as I need to go really, these all advocated reform or revolution of society along a more egalitarian basis, hence Anarchism to my mind is progressive and Left Wing, though it's failings in my view are tendency to remain Utopic, or it's inability or refusal to become politically active to effect change, ending often in nihilism, compromise or prison.

I think your Taoism was a viable philosophy for everyday life 2000 or so years ago in Feudal China but I think to invoke Taoism as a method of living under/co-existing with the modern Capitalist state is slightly ill advised, to maintain the balance of Yin and Yang in modern Capitalist society would require the masses adopt an almost slave or pavement like passivity (yin) to counteract the assertive dominance (yang) of the Capitalist elite.

Have you seen the Corporation?
What did you think of that?